AgainstDispensationalism.com

Anti-Semitism and Dispensationalism

2011-07-20T14:59:00.011-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Dispensationalists have a strong commitment to Israel at all costs. Their commitment to Israel is so all-controlling that they even posit a millennial age in which Israel will dominate all other nations — reducing even to the lowest level those nations committed to Christ during that time. Herman Hoyt, past president of Grace Theological Seminary writes:

“The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land will be head over all the nations of the earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Gentile nations. . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations.” (Herman Hoyt, “Dispensational Premillennialism,” in Robert G. Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views [Downer’s Grove, Ill: Inter-varsity Press, 1977], 81).

This is, of course, a form of racism (race determines priority) and even could be described as “anti-Gentilism” (race determines exclusion).

Yet, they deem as anti-Semitic any eschatological view that applies Israel’s covenant promises to the church and sees the church as the final phase in God’s redemptive dealings with man. Hal Lindsey even wrote a whole book on the subject titled, The Road to Holocaust. In their view non-dispensational theology is not only biblically deficient but morally corrupt.

For instance, Tim LaHaye associate, Thomas Ice, has written that “historically replacement theology (the church replaces the Jews as the new or true Israel, and Israel has no future as a distinct nation within God’s plan) has been the theological foundation upon which anti-Semitism has been built within the confines of Christianity. (Ice, “Hal Lindsey, Dominion Theology, and Anti-Semitism,” Biblical Perspectives, 5:1 [Jan.-Feb., 1992], p. 2).

Their moral charges against non-dispensational theological systems fail miserably for two significant reasons (among several dozen more):

First, dispensationalism inadvertently involves the New Testament itself in anti-Semitism. How so?

They frequently cite the standard academic works on anti-Semitism that link “replacement theology,” “supersessionism,” or “church fulfillment theology” with this sinful form of racism in history. Sadly, they do not carefully read those academic works which they so excitedly quote. These book invariably trace anti-Semitism back to the New Testament itself! We see this in the following titles of books and academic articles:

• Gregory Baum, Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? A Re-examination of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Glen Rock, N.J.: Deus, 1965.
• Norman A. Beck, Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (Rev. ed.: New York: Crossroad, 1994).
• John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti -Semitism in the Gospel Story (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995).
• Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Anti-Semitism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).
• T. A. Burkill, “Anti-Semitism in St. Mark’s Gospel,” New Testament 3 (1959): 34–52.
• W. R. Farmer, Anti-Judaism and the Gospels (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1999).
• Riemund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and Frederique Vandecasteele, eds., Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox, 2001).
• L. T. Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 419–41.
• R. R. Ruether, Is the New Testament AntiSemitic? (2d. ed.: Glen Rock: N. J.: Paulist, 1965).

Such works argue that Christianity’s claim that Christ is the only way of salvation – and even that he is the Jewish Messiah, are anti-Semitic and must be removed from Scripture!

Second, to make matters worse: dispensationalism ends up encouraging current-day actions that will (they admit!) lead to a wholesale slaughter of the Jews. What do I mean?

Dispensationalists delight in Israel’s 1948 re-establishment as a nation. They rejoice in the great number of Jews who have already and will yet return to Israel. They gladly encourage modern Israeli policies that draw Jews back into the Land. The excitedly look for the rebuilding of the Jewish temple — by Jews who have returned to the land of Israel.

For instance, The Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible exults: “the regathering of a people once scattered among the nations of the world is evidenced that God is at work in fulfilling His prophetic word” (p. 1080). On the same page it continues: “the most exciting, documented evidence that the Lord’s return could be close at hand is the activity surrounding preparations for the rebuilding of the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.”

Another book focusing on the rebuilding of the temple does the same. Don Stewart and Chuck Missler dedicate their book, The Coming Temple (1991): “To our wonderful friends in Israel this book is lovingly dedicated.” In still another work Ready to Rebuild (1992) on p. 25 we read: “Today many Christians are excited about the very real potential for the rebuilding of Israel’s Temple in Jerusalem.”

But even while encouraging Jews to return to Israel, dispensationalists teach that “Zechariah predicts that two-thirds of the Jewish people in the land will perish during the Tribulation period.” (LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, 1101). John Walvoord, in his Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (1990, p. 332) states of Zechariah 14:8–9: “This prophecy will be fulfilled in the Great Tribulation when two out of three of the Jews in the land attempt to flee their persecutor, the future world leader, will perish, and only one-third will escape.”

Should they not be warning Jews not to return to Israel? Would not it be more wise and compassionate to warn Jews what will befall them after they return?

Dispensationalism is trapped in a Catch-22: On their theological view of Israel and their eschatological view of history, they must encourage Jews to return to Israel. But on their exegetical understanding of prophecy, they know that after they have returned, fully two-thirds of them will be destroyed. This should be deemed a form of anti-Semitism!

Literally Abused: The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism

2011-07-08T15:58:00.001-04:00

by Jerry Johnson
Copyright 2009 - All Rights Reserved

Before the so-called Enlightenment took hold in the 18th Century — putting Man and Human Wisdom rather than God at the center of academia — theology was considered by universities throughout the Western world to be the “Queen of the Sciences.”

As a result of the Reformation, most scholars rightfully understood what the Bible clearly teaches:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. Psalm 111:10

and:

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

They recognized that man was a fallen, fallible and finite creature — a reality that tainted ever aspect of his nature – including his intellect. Therefore, the search for truth and understanding in any field — for example, philosophy or science — needed to begin with theology, the study of the nature and mind of a perfect, infallible and infinite Creator. Only in Him could man find the unshakeable foundation upon which to stand and attempt to study and make sense of the cosmos.

I hope to demonstrate that no matter how numerous, godly and sincere dispensationalism’s adherents may be, their system nevertheless is deeply in error and has led to all manner of beliefs and practices that are contrary to the revealed will of God. And the result has been a rapid decline of the Church in both character and influence.

I know for some these are fighting words. They aren’t meant to be. They are born out of a deep love for God, His truth and the world we are called to serve.

In actuality, we are not the one who picked the fight! It was forced upon us by a number of dispensational proponents over the last one hundred years. They’re the ones that have accused non-dispensationalists of everything from not taking God at His Word, to sowing the seeds of liberalism, even laying the charge of the anti-Semitism that led to the Nazi Holocaust.

And there’s something else as well.

Any discerning Christian knows that the Western world, what used to be called Christendom, has deep, deep problems. We are surrounded by indicators that when it comes to the banquet choice God sets before nations:

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Deuteronomy 30:19

Our appetite for destruction has become increasingly insatiable. Narcissism, greed, violence, paganism, pornography, child abuse and pedophilia; the breakdown of the family; our obsession with vacuous and increasingly evil entertainments; the advance of humanistic governments, laws, schools, penal systems, philosophies and worldviews; and, perhaps most significantly, our surrender before two specific evils that the Bible suggests may well be the last signs that a culture has consummated its covenant with death:

• militant sodomy - see Romans 1:26-27
• child sacrifice (abortion) – see Psalm 106: 35-38)

…all this and much more should shatter our complacency and — are you ready for this? — our complicity. Because the most sobering fact of all is that these evils have found there way into the church; that Augustine’s distinction between the City of Man and the City of God has become increasingly blurred. We have, as Pogo famously observed, “met the enemy and he is us.”

This is the ultimate disaster. The praying, gospel-preaching, Great Commission-empowered Church is the salt and light of the world, God’s foundational solution for the world’s problems. And when the salt loses its saltiness, the “meat of culture” will inevitably rot.

No doubt most dispensationalist leaders would agree with this “state of the nation” analysis — though they would likely attribute it to the great falling away they see prophesied in scripture, many have boldly fought against this apostasy, For example, Dr. Tim LaHaye and his wife, Beverly, through their organization, Concerned Woman for America.

But we are convinced that no matter how godly and well-intentioned dispensationalists are, their theological system has inevitably produced a harvest of ideas and practices that have contributed to the very evils they join us in hating and ultimately leading to the decline of God’s Word and the Church in the world. Why do we say this? Well, because this is consistent dispensationalism.

For example, C.I. Scofield, wrote,

“It is true that the great body of the churches believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, BUT they have turned aside the greater part of their resources, to the attempt to reform the world, to educate the world, and, in short, to anticipate the next dispensation in which those things belong, and to do the work that is distinctly set apart for restored and converted Israel in her Kingdom Age.” C.I. Scofield, The Biggest Failure of the Church Age

Likewise, Dave Hunt, a popular dispensational writer echoes these sentiments with these words,

“The Great Commission does not involve exerting a Christian influence upon society. We are not to "change society," but to "convert individuals." There is much talk today about "changing the world for Christ." In fact, though, there is no Biblical teaching or example to support that popular slogan.” Dave Hunt, The Berean Call, Updated excerpt from Whatever Happen to Heaven (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1988) pg. 84-86

Given the magnitude of the destruction we now face — what could very well be the end of the Western world as we’ve known it — we believe that we have no choice but to do what a young monk named Martin Luther did — figuratively nail our 95 points of contention to the door of the Church and pray that God, in His wisdom and mercy, will grant us not only revival and reformation, but, in the words and command of our Lord and Savior – the grace and ability to “disciple the nations.”

If He doesn’t, the downward moral spiral of our day and age will pale in comparison to the harvest of judgment that America and the nations of Western Europe will experience. And we may fine the word “ICHABOD” “the glory of the LORD has departed” written over doorpost of the western church.

And please, please don’t grasp at the straw that God will somehow yank us out of the mess we helped create. The very idea is contrary to God’s character, His Word, and the history He has written over the ashes of other nations who have chosen self-rule over God’s, death over life.

One of the challenges in building a consensus about anything is understanding that there is no such a thing as a “naked fact” – that everything − from sunsets to quantum particles, history to eschatology − is seen through a lens of some kind, a grid of presuppositions that will first determine what we decide the facts are − and then how we will interpret them. And it’s just as vital we remember this when considering theology − what God has revealed to us in the scriptures.

“I’m at an age now where I normally need a pair of glasses to read my Bible. But there is another form of glasses we all wear when we look into God’s word. It is what theologians call our “hermeneutic.”

Dr. Louis Berkhof explains that hermeneutics is,

“…the science that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation.” Louis Berkhof, Principals of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1950) pp. 11.

Or to say it another way hermeneutics is the system of interpreting the Bible and figuring out what exactly God is communicating to us.

The key here is to have the right glasses on, to view the Bible through the lens of the proper hermeneutic. And this comes − first and perhaps most importantly − through humility and a complete willingness to obey whatever the Scriptures show you. But the second key is diligent study and in letting the Bible interpret the Bible, bringing every thought captive in obedience to Christ.

And its here where people – even very good and sincere ones − can get into trouble. By leaning − even without realizing it − on other perspectives − be they Greek or American or rationalistic or romantic or any of a thousand other humanistic systems of thought − one’s hermeneutical lenses can get dirty. And error will inevitably result.

So what is the primary purpose or goal of hermeneutics? Dr. Robert L. Reymond explains,

“the exegete (or Bible student)…must seek to put himself in the authors linguistic, historical, and religious shoes to discover the writers intended meaning.” Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Second edition – Revised and Updated, 1998) pp. 49.

So just how does a Christian living in the twenty-first century understand something that was written in the first century? How can we put ourselves in the words of Dr. Reymond “in the writer’s linguistic, historical and religious shoes?”

Understanding the time in which something was written, to whom it was written and why - is enormously helpful. This is the essential nature of the “historical” in the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. As an example, suppose you read an article that identified a “gay event” that took place at Carnegie Hall. If you did not know that the article was written in the year eighteen ninety nine, but assumed it was written at the beginning of the 21st century, the phrase “gay event” would have a radically different meaning and the absences of this fact would ultimately lead to the wrong conclusion.

With the introduction of dispensationalism many of the established rules of interpretation were redefined, ignored and sometimes overthrown. Dispensationalist from Darby to Scofield and beyond reversed the method of the Reformation opting for a rationalistic scheme that started, not with the Scriptures, but with themselves.

They constructed new rules of interpretation, many times using the same terminology, but redefining the meaning and application. Please know that this is not a groundless charge. Early dispensationalist admitted to this; even boasting in it. When they could not find anyone who agreed with their new interpretation, they encouraged their followers to jettison the historic creeds, confessions and commentaries of the previous sixteen centuries.

Quoting Harry A. Ironside, a Plymouth Brethren who later became the pastor of the Moody Memorial Church,

"In fact, until brought to the fore, through the writings and preaching of…Mr. J. N. Darby, in the early part of the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon throughout a period of 1600 years! If any doubt this statement, let them search, as the writer has in a measure done, the remarks of the so-called Fathers, both pre and post-Nicene, the theological treatises of the scholastic divines, Roman Catholic writers of au shades of thought; the literature of the Reformation; the sermons and expositions of the Puritans; and the general theological works of the day…" Harry A. Ironside, The Mysteries of God (New York, NY; Loizeaux Brothers, 1908), pages 50-51.

This rejection led to a humanistic understanding of linguistics and gave primacy of Biblical interpretation, not to the Scriptures themselves, but to fallen man. I do not have the time to cover every aspect of the dispensational hermeneutic, therefore we will deal with the two major upheavals that this system of interpretation brought to the table and hopefully convince you that these rules or principles caused radical paradigm shifts and introduced new understandings that no other Christian believed or practiced during the first eighteen hundred years of Christian history.

Dispensationalists believe that their system is a result of simply reading God’s Word and taking it a face value. Non-dispensationalists so the charge goes, do not approach the Bible with this simply child like faith, but instead “spiritualized” the text and “allegorized” the meaning.

On nearly every front in every discussion, dispensationalists claim that they alone interpret the Bible correctly by using what they call consistent literalism. Their method of reading and understanding God’s Word, so they say, is superior to all others and too many supreme test of orthodoxy.

Dr. Curtis I. Crenshaw, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary explains,

“As a former dispensationalist I was mesmerized with the literal hermeneutic…I was satiated with the confidence that this principle of interpretation was the cornerstone of any true approach to Scripture, and paraded it before all as the bedrock of the dispensational method. This `literal' approach produced in me a calm lethargy to anything the [non-dispensationalist] could say. Any argument they could make was disarmed in advance with such statements as this: `They do not advocate a literal hermeneutic.'" Curtis I. Crenshaw, Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, Fifth printing 1995) pp. 1.

How did this understanding of Biblical interpretation become the “cornerstone” for Dr. Crenshaw and so many others? He was simply echoing the words of his professors at Dallas Dr. Charles Ryrie who wrote,

“…only dispensationalism provides the key to consistent literalism.”

C.I. Scofield went so far as to say,

“Unless one interprets each passage of Scripture dispensationally, one is in a hopeless quandary and can never expect to understand the Bible.” C. I. Scofield, What Do The Prophets Say? (Philadelphia, The Sunday School Times Co., 1918), pp. 9.

It would not be an overstatement to say that the word literal is the arch principle of the dispensational interpretive method. Ironically, getting them to define it is another thing. Reflecting on his years at Dallas Seminary Dr. Crenshaw noted,

“No one seemed to know precisely what literal meant…There was a mysticism that shrouded the term, giving it force but little content…” Curtis I. Crenshaw, Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, Fifth printing 1995) pp. 1.

Dr. Charles Ryrie attempts to give “literal” a theological definition as it would apply to the Word of God. Regrettably, he ends up having a word with an ambiguous definition at best. He explains literalism as that which the interpreter should give,

“…to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.” (pg 80).

Of course, the problem with this definition is obvious! Now we need to understand what he means by the “normal usage”? And by the way, who gets to define what is normal? Jews? Gentiles? Liberals? Conservatives? 2nd Century Romans or 21st century Americans?

Dr. Ryrie attempts to defend this definition of literalism by claiming that it fits into “the received laws of language.” However, he never explains what these received laws of language are and just who received them?

Dr. Crenshaw notes,

“Since Ludwig Wittgenstein’s studies in linguistic analysis, no two philosophers have surfaced such “laws” on which they can agree nor a sound philosophy of language.” Curtis I. Crenshaw, Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, Fifth printing 1995) pp. 2.

He concludes with this devastating remark,

“Such statements further indicate that the dispensational hermeneutic is derived from a humanistic concept of literal. By assuming the sovereignty of man and the neutrality of philosophy and facts, Ryrie has ‘straight jacketed’ Scripture with his humanistic notion of literal.” Curtis I. Crenshaw, Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, Fifth printing 1995) pp. 3.

Beside this subjective and incomplete definition, Ryrie insist that,

“…the dispensationalist's….use the normal (or literal) principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible.” Pg 82

Is this true? Do dispensationalists employ consistent literalism?

After years of wrestling with many inconsistencies with respect to the dispensational view of what is “literal” and reflecting on what they had been taught in schools like Dallas Seminary, many former dispensationalists have been shocked by how often their teachers and professors violated their own definition of consistent literalism. Dr. Keith Mathison explains,

“John Walvoord…insists that when an Old Testament prophecy refers to Israel, it must mean the literal nation of Israel; but when the same Old Testament prophecy speaks of other nations, such as Assyria or Philistia, (according to Walvoord) it only refers to the land once inhabited by these nations. Whoever may be inhabiting these lands [now] may fulfill these prophecies.” Keith Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed), pg 6-7

“This is not consistent literalism.” Ibid

The New Testament, especially the Gospel of John is full of examples where people erred by failing to distinguish Jesus' use of figurative language. When Jesus said “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it” in (John 2:19) the Jews mistakenly assumed He meant the actual physical temple. As a result of taking His words literally, they sought to kill Him (Matt. 26:61). Nicodemus' anthro-literalism led him to question if being "born again" meant to "enter a second time into his mother's womb" (John 3:4). When Jesus spoke of "a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life" the Samaritan woman erred and wanted a actual drink of water (John 4:10-15). John records these blunders by his first century audience and they are found in practically every chapter. But these examples should be sufficient to demonstrate that a “consistent literal interpretation” is impossible and can even lead to wrong conclusions.

This tendency to disallow the use of figurative words and phrases is pursued so aggressively that sometimes dispensational have crossed the line from literalism to hyper literalism; and in some circles this has lead to an aberrant theological position.

For example, one dispensational writer argued that God must have a body since the Bible teaches that he has arms, hands and sits on a throne. Finnis J. Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Atlanta, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1965), NT pg 280.

Of course Darby, Scofield, Ryrie, in fact most dispensationalist would vehemently disagree with Finnis Dake’s hyper- literalism and probably shudder to think that he was in their camp; though no doubt on the fringes. But it does make one wonder, would Finnis Dake charge these men with “spiritualizing” the text and not taking the Bible “literally”?

Another example that comes down to us through the annals of Church history can be found in the debate that raged between two Reformers; Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli. The issue centered on the meaning of a single word spoken by Jesus in Mathew 26:26 as He instituted the Lord’s Supper.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.”

Dr. John Gerstner explains that during this debate,

“There [was] no disagreement about the words this, my, or body…The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is.” Pg 89

Can you believe it? In the final analysis, it really does depend on what is, is.

Dr. Gerstner continues,

“[Luther said] is is to be taken literally; that is, it is to be understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, or blood and wine. [Zwingli said] that is is to be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean ‘represents.’”

Despite Ryrie’s proclamation of the “received laws of language” there is nothing linguistically, per se, which demands that we interpret this passage one way or the other. When the dust of opinion settles it ultimately depends on ones theology; not grammar.

What is interesting to note is that most dispensationalist, by in large, maintain a Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper; that the bread and wine are symbolic and that the table is simply a memorial. In the end they spiritualize the word “is” not taking it literally.

Dr. O.T. Allis rightly concludes, "While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers." Prophecy and the Church, pp. 21, 22, 24

Dr. Allis makes an extremely important point. A historical narrative is the type of writing you would expect to find words to have, more often than not, a straight forward meaning. Prophecy, by its nature tends to be more figurative. Dispensationalists reverse this order and give to prophecy an unwarranted literalism. And dispensationalists have not only been inconsistent in its application, but down right contradictory in defense of their method.

In his book The Basis of the Premillennial Faith Charles Ryrie writes,

“The system of spiritualizing Scripture is a tacit denial of the doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures which this author holds.”

A few chapters later this avowed "literalist" says,

"Although much of prophecy is given in plain terms, much of it is in figurative language, and constitutes a problem of interpretation."

Later he dismounts his Trojan horse when he explains,

"In conclusion it may be stated that in connection with the use of figurative language, the interpreter should not look for the literal sense of the words employed in the figure, but for the literal sense intended by the use of the figure"

Well, which is it? As William E. Cox noted,

“It is amusing indeed to have read, just a few pages before that this man called any and all "spiritualizing" a tacit denial of the Bible.”

So how did dispensationalist come up with their idea of literal? In all fairness to Dr. Ryrie, he really believes that his understanding comes from the Bible itself.

“…the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ — His birth, His rearing, His ministry; His death, His resurrection — were all fulfilled literally. That argues strongly for the literal method.” (PG 81)

Another leading dispensationalist put it this way,

"All of fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled literally." William L. Pettingill, God's Prophecies for Plain People (Findlay, Ohio: Fundamental Truth Publishers, 1923), pp. 228.

Though literally true, many Old Testament prophecies concerning the Lord Jesus’ first advent would make no sense if one understood them literally. For example, the first prophecy found in the Bible concerning Christ coming to redeem his people is – (show on screen) Genesis 3:15,

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

If we applied the dispensational definition of literal to this prophecy we would not expect its fulfillment to be a conflict between a literal man and a literal serpent, rather than between Christ and Satan. Instead of Christ hanging on the cross (symbolizing the bruising of His heel) would we not have an image of Him literally chasing a snake around and stepping on its head with His foot?

Besides Genesis 3:15 there are other Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ first advent in which figurative language was used?

In fact, many of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus’ first advent were recorded using metaphors, symbolism and figures of speech.

One study noted that approximately 65% of such prophecies were written in symbolic language; not the so-called literal language. Curtis I. Crenshaw, Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, Fifth printing 1995) pp. 9.

Looking at the New Testament and the book of Revelation

“And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” 13:1-2

Of course, we are not saying that dispensationalist believe it is a literal beast having literally seven heads or a genetic mutation between an actual leopard, bear and a lion. But the question the dispensationalists must answer is, “why not?”

That dispensationalist claim to take the Bible literally, especially when it comes to prophecy, may be one of the biggest shams of modern times. A simple examination of their works prove that they consistently employee non-literal explanations. For example, Hal Lindsey in his book There’s a New World coming gives this interpretation to the previous mentioned passage,

“What do the ten horns with ten crowns represent…”

Our question is, if we take the text “literally” why do the have to represent anything? Lindsey continues,

“In Biblical symbology horns almost always represent political power. In this case the Beast’s ten horns picture ten nations that will form a confederacy which the beast will rule during the tribulation.” Hal Lindsey, There’s A New World Coming, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984), pp. 173-174.

Again we ask, is this consistent literalism? To counter this argument Ryrie’s writes one of the most confusing statements and in the end, betrays his own belief in literalism,

“Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.” Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1966], 1995), pp. 80-81.

That is one peculiar statement. This is what we have been saying all along. However, for some twisted reason when we say it we are accused of not taking the Bible literally. This is a prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Of course symbols, types and figures of speech have a literally meaning - which is our point. Though they have a literal meaning, you don’t take them literally. A good example can be found in the 1970s song Convoy by C.W. McCall. There is a line in that song that went like this

“Pigpen this here’s the rubber duck and I’m about to put the hammer down?”

Putting the hammer down has a literal meaning, but the words are figurative! It meant putting the full strength of you leg and foot on the gas pedal or accelerator. It had nothing to do with a literal hammer or literally putting it down. (Show judges gavel being brought behind in slow motion.)

Perhaps E.P. Barrows said it best,

'The youthful student of Scripture should be reminded, first of all, that its figurative language is no less certain and truthful than its plain and literal declarations. The figures of the Bible are employed not simply to please the imagination and excite the feelings, but to teach eternal verities' E. P. Barrows, Companion to the Bible (New York: 1869) pp. 557.

As already note, the issue between dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist is not that we “spiritualize” the Bible and they take it “literally.” Both believe it to be the literal Word of God and literally true. The real question is when should the words and phrases meant to be taken literally and when are they to be understood figuratively?

Dr. Mathison hits the nail on the head when he writes,

“The fact is that nobody can be absolutely literal in his interpretation of Scripture. The Bible itself will not allow it. There are some insurmountable scriptural problems that occur if one attempts to be consistently literal in his approach to interpretation.”

We often hear dispensationalist say that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity. Sometimes called the “golden rule of interpretation” many put it this way,

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense…”

Hal Lindsey proudly states,

“This is the method [he] diligently sought to follow.” Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Books, eighth printing 1971), pp. 50

This may be simplicity at its finest, but when one tries to put it into actual practice its simplicity is not so easily applied. Dr. Milton S. Terry comments upon this very statement,

"It should be observed, however, that this principle, when reduced to practice, becomes simply an appeal to every man's rational judgment, and what to one seems very absurd and improbable may be to another altogether simple and self-consistent." Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise of the Interpretation of the Old and New Testament (New York, NY: Phillips & Hunt, 1883), pp. 247

During the nineteen sixty and seventies it seemed as if dispensationalism had captured they minds and hearts of the church. But during the nineteen eighties many of their own scholars began lifting the veil of the so-called literalism and, much to their chagrin; the curtain of dispensationalism tore. Many who had formerly been associated with the classical and modern forms peaked inside; and for the first time they saw that the wizard was a man. And so began the progressive dispensational movement.

Various "progressive dispensationalists" have rejected as inadequate the so-called literalist hermeneutic of Darby, Scofield and Ryrie. The inability of the movement to define and apply consistently their self proclaimed literalism has dispensationalists debating among themselves, searching for definition and meaning; questioning the man-made idol of their system.

The late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson a professor for twenty-seven years at Dallas Seminary summarized the problem of the seminaries literalism as follows: "Failing to examine the methodology of the scriptural writers carefully, and following too abjectly and woodenly the limited rules and principles of human reason's presuppositions, we have stumbled and lost our landmarks along the pathway toward the understanding of the Holy Scripture. Scriptura sui ipsius interpres [Scripture is its own interpreter] is the fundamental principle of biblical interpretation."

So how do we decide when to take something literal or figurative? This of course is the sixty four thousand dollar question which brings us to the second innovative principle put forth by dispensationalist.

An axiom on how to study the Bible that is the often attributed to St. Augustine of Hippo goes like this,

“The New Testament is in the Old Testament contained; and the Old is in the new explained.”

Though we believe that,

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” II Tim. 3:16-17

We must remember that the Scriptures are progressive in nature (Heb. 1:1-2). The New Testament writers in no way contradicted the Old Testament! On the contrary, they viewed the New as a true expansion and fulfillment.

A.W. Pink, pastor and former dispensationalist concurs,

“The New has all its roots in the Old, so that much in the one is unintelligible apart from the other…That it is entirely unwarrantable for us to suppose that the message proclaimed by the Lord Jesus was something new or radically different from the early communications of God.”

The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old. As the Apostle Paul wrote,

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Colossians 2:16-17

The things Paul mentions are elements of the ceremonial law. They were shadows. And as the writer of Hebrews points out, shadows are not the things themselves. The great Baptist commentator John Gill explains,

“[as shadows] it had not neither the things themselves, nor Christ, the substance of them, so it did not give a clear revelation of them, as is made in the Gospel, nor exhibit a distinct delineation of them, such as an image expresses; it only gave some short and dark hints of future good things, but did not exactly describe them.”

The Old Testament is full of shadows and types; things that are not very clear. Now the question before us is who should we look to in helping us interpret these shadows and types? In other words, who is the best or preeminent authority to interpreter the Old Testament for us? Is it the Pharisees, the Ethiopian eunuch, modern-day newspapers, or Christ and His Apostles? (put as a question on the screen with multiple choice answers A. B. C. or D….)

The Bible is its own best interpreter. And the New Testament is the Old Testament's primary infallible interpreter. God’s Word, therefore, exhibits, within its sacred pages, both the principles and methods of a sound trustworthy exegesis; Jesus and His Apostles are our infallible guides as to what Moses and the prophets meant.

Instead of a Christo/Apostolic method (giving Christ and His Apostles preeminence in interpreting the Old Testament), the early dispensationalist advocated what has become known as “the Law of first mention” sometimes called the “first-occurrence principle.”

B.W. Newton, one of the leaders in the Plymouth Brethren movement explains this so-called “Law”:

"I find in Scripture a principle of interpretation, which I believe, if conscientiously adopted, will serve as an unfailing guide as to the mind of God as contained therein. The first mention of a thing, the very first words of any subject of which the Holy Spirit is going to treat, is the keystone of the whole matter." J.D. Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Books, 1947) pp. 70.

A more practical definition comes from the pen of J. Edwin Hartill, dispensational author and professor of Bible at Northwestern College,

“The first time a thing is mentioned in Scripture it carries with it a meaning that will be carried all through the Word of God.” Ibid.

How important was this new light principle to the forming dispensational movement? According to A.T. Pierson, longtime friend of C.I. Scofield and consulting editor for the original Scofield Reference Bible, he called it,

“…the Divine Law of Firsts." Roel Velma, The Law of First Mention, (Hattem, The Netherlands) published on-line www.lampbroadcast.com

The argument for the certainty of the first mention principle takes two forms. The advocates first argue that God never changes, therefore, what He states the first time and the meaning He applies to a Word must never change. Second, is the appeal that in the Bible there is only one speaker; namely God Himself.

On the surface this seems to make sense. Of course we agree. God never changes and though He used forty-two authors to write His word, He is the One voice that is speaking. However, in the final analysis, inspiration and language simply do not work that way. How would you like to have your words limited to the sense they had the first time you spoke them?

Let us state plainly, the “first mention” method can be useful, but only to a certain point. If left unchecked it can very quickly lead to absurdity. Either one's conclusions become nonsense, or they become justification for doctrinal bias.

On another note, to refer to it as the “first principle” or “Law of First Mention” would mean that its application would be absolute. As Abraham Kuyper noted,

“…a sharply drawn distinction of conceptions and a constant usage of words is foreign to the Scripture.” Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954) pp. 496

Any hermeneutic, and for that matter, any system of doctrine must be firmly guided and subjected to the whole of God’s Word; not a proof text that takes a writers thought out of context. As A.W. Pink observed,

“…we place first and foremost the need for recognizing the inter-relation and mutual dependence of the Old and New Testaments. We do so because error at this point inevitably results in a serious misunderstanding and perverting of not a little in the later Scriptures. We do not propose to enter into a refutation of the modern heresy of "dispensationalism," but…After a long and careful comparison of the writings of that school…it is our conviction that that eminent reformer[s were] far more deeply taught by the Holy Spirit than those who claimed to receive so much "new light on God’s Word" a century ago. Arthur W. Pink, Interpretation of Scripture, Chapter 4

As an example of the problems inherent in the first mention method consider Cain. He was the first person in the Bible to bring a botanical offering to God and that offering was rejected (Gen 4:2-5). Should we therefore conclude that all such offerings will be rejected? Of course not, because in Deuteronomy 26:1-4 God commands an offering of fruit to be brought by the children of Israel and placed on His altar.

Or better still what about the prophecy found in Malachi 4:5 predicting the return Elijah?

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.”

In fact, if one used the first mention method they would never see this being fulfilled in John the Baptist as Jesus said it was. If they were consistently literal, they should conclude, as the Scribes and Pharisees did that it would be Elijah himself and not someone in the spirit and power of Elijah.

The great Reformed commentator Matthew Henry agrees,

“The Jewish doctors will have it to be the same Elijah that prophesied in Israel in the days of Ahab—that he shall come again to be the forerunner of the Messiah…” Matthew Henry, The Comprehensive Commentary (Brattleboro, VT: The Brattleboro Typographic Company, 1839), Volume III, pp. 920.

In fact, this question was posed by the disciples to the Lord Jesus,

“And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” Matthew 17:11-13

During the first century the Jews had thoroughly corrupted God’s Word. Greek philosophy and their own apathy led many to funnel their understanding through a man-made literal interpretive grid. Matthew Poole notes,

“They knew him not, their tradition blinded them so as they could not discern the prophecy of Malachi fulfilled in [John the Baptist] him…”

Again citing John Gill,

“[John the Baptist]…was not Elijah the prophet that lived in Ahab’s time, and was called the Tishbite; for John’s answer is to the intention of their question, and their own meaning in it…he was the Elias that was to come; for he was the person meant by him in Mal 4:5 though not in the sense the Jews understood it.” Commentary john 1:21

It would appear that the so-called first mention method fed right into the dispensational position of literalism; the one confirmed the other. This type of circular reasoning is both fallacious and unfounded. This anthro-iteralism blinded the 1st century Jewish mind to the Lord Jesus’ advent. The question now before is simple, “should we trust this method of interpretation for understanding His second advent?

Perhaps this is what led Dr. S. Lewis Johnson of Dallas Seminary to rejected much of the modern dispensational hermeneutic and embrace a methodology that gave primacy of interpretation to Christ and His Apostles?

“…the New Testament understanding of the Old Testament is the true understanding of it…” S. Lewis Johnson, The Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), pp. 83.

These two new rules, “consistent literalism” and the “law of first mention” are the bedrock of the dispensational distinction between the Church and Israel and if they are abandoned, then like the walls of Jericho their house of cards will crumble.

Israel in Scripture Made Easy

2011-06-06T10:02:00.005-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

I will soon start work on a new volume in our "Made Easy" series of books published by NiceneCouncil.com. The working title of this book is: Israel in Scripture Made Easy. In it I will outline and exegetically demonstrate the significance, role, and destiny of Israel according to biblical law and prophecy.

I will be demonstrating that Israel was always intended to be a stepping-stone to the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ, an early stage in the progress of redemption. She was never intended to be an end in herself. Thus, I will be discussing the Abrahamic Covenant, the conquest of the Land, the role of Israel in biblical theology and prophecy, her judgments in history, her final judgment in AD 70, and her future conversion.

I will show that she no longer has a special status among the peoples of the earth, she will never be exalted above the nations, and that she will never rebuild her temple and begin offering sacrifices. In doing this, I will show that she has served her glorious purpose already and that Christ is the fulfillment of the Land promise.

If you have any questions you would like to see me cover, please post a note here on the blog. Or email me at: kengentry@nicenecouncil.com

After I complete that project (which I must first research, then write), I already have planned the following "Made Easy" series books: Daniel's Seventy Week Made Easy and Dismantling Dispensationalism Made Easy.

If you have any ideas for future "Made Easy" series books, send me a note. Our work here at NiceneCouncil.com is having an impact on many dispensationalists. A good impact, that is.

Christ, Israel, and the Church

2011-05-24T11:10:00.003-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Dispensationalism has two key commandments that call its followers to true obedience:

“First, thou shalt always, forever, and without fail hold, maintain, defend, promote, and even suffer martyrdom for a distinct and dominant future for geo-political Israel — thou and thy house after thee.”

Indeed, the distinction between Israel and the Church embodied in this commandment is a sine qua non of the whole system. For dispensationalists, everything rises or falls on the question of Israel. Which being interpreted means that the whole system ultimately falls. (That is why their frequent calls for the Rapture always fail: it is not due to their lame excuse that they hit some dense clouds and dropped back down to earth.)

In this regard dispensationalism differs from the teaching of Jesus — and of the whole New Testament. But not to worry, for this is only the first and great commandment. But there is a second commandment that is like unto it:

“Second, thou shalt surely interpret the Old Testament without reference to Jesus or his tiny band of Apostles — for what do they know, since they ante-date Scofield? Yea, and thou shalt be satisfied no matter what Jesus saith.”

On these two commandments hang the whole system and the mass-market paperback industry — and its publishing houses.

In this blog I will select some insightful quotations from an important older article that absolutely demolishes the dispensational view of Israel by demonstrating that this was not Christ’s view: R. T. France, “Old Testament Prophecy and the Future of Israel” published in the Tyndale Bulletin (vol. 26: 1975). I highly recommend your reading, studying, memorizing, copying, distributing, and promoting this article to erstwhile dispensationalists. It is a marvelous exposition of Christ’s teaching about Israel, and the Church’s replacement of Israel as drawn from Christ’s teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. I keep a copy of this article beside my bed for devotional study, world without end. Amen.

By the way, you can find and download this article in pdf format at: http://98.131.162.170//tynbul/library/TynBull_1975_26_03_France_OTProphecyIsrael.pdf

Now, let’s get to work.

Introduction

France opens by noting the large use to which Israel is put in modern evangelical circles. He laments: “Anyone who dares to question the relevance of Old Testament prophecy to the Jewish people of today and the political state of Israel is quickly, and often quite unfairly, charged with anti-Semitism (a strangely inappropriate word when applied to a political conflict in which both sides are overwhelmingly Semitic!).” You have probably been tarred-and-feathered on this very charge. He then warns that “our theology should not be based on sentiment or on political expediency, but, as far as possible, on objective exegesis.”

As he turns to the exegesis of this question he notes that “the attitude of Christianity’s founder is surely crucial to the debate.” Of course, that is a no-no in dispensational thinking because of their Second Great Commandment cited above. The nerve of letting Jesus direct our understanding of the Old Testament and Israel! This will not stand!

France’s article provides six key observations regarding Jesus’ teaching on Israel. I will clip some of his observations from his article while using his own headings to organize them. These ought to arouse your appetite and bed her back down.

1. The Note of Fulfillment
“Mark introduces Jesus’ ministry with the declaration, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand.’ (Mark 1:15) Luke, makes the same theme even more prominent by opening his account of the ministry with the dramatic episode of Jesus’ manifesto in the synagogue at Nazareth, focused on the declaration, ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing’. (Luke 4:21) At the other end of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus sums up his ministry by expounding ‘in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.’ (Luke 24:27, 44-47).”

. . .

“While other Jews looked forward to the fulfilment of Old Testament hopes, the New Testament
writers looked back and saw them already fulfilled in Christ.”

. . .

“Two conclusions relevant to this paper therefore suggest themselves. (a) Jesus saw in his own coming the age of fulfilment of the messianic hopes of the Old Testament; the emphasis is on present, not future, fulfilment. (b) His conception of Messiahship had as little as possible to do
with the political future of the Jewish nation.”

. . .

“There are, of course, some cases where Jesus looks to the future for a fulfilment of certain Old Testament prophecies. But it is a remarkable fact that these are apparently entirely prophecies of judgment.... But I have found no instance where Jesus expects a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy other than through his own ministry, and certainly no suggestion of a future restoration of the Jewish nation independent of himself. He himself is the fulfilment to which Old Testament prophecy points, the ultimate horizon of the prophetic vision.”

. . .

2. The Note of Warning

“The rather unexpected popular identification of Jesus with Jeremiah in Matthew 16: 14 is to be accounted for by the reputation of Jeremiah as a prophet of doom. In contrast with the fierce optimism of the apocalyptic hopes of Qumran, Jesus, with his constant warnings and threats of both personal and national disaster, must have seemed to his contemporaries a second Jeremiah, a one man opposition to the nationalist hopes of his fellow-citizens.”

. . .

“There is a note of urgency about his mission to Israel, seen most strikingly in the instructions to the Twelve to travel light, not to waste time in greetings, and to keep moving on without staying to plead with the unresponsive (Mark 6:8-12 and parr.; Matthew 10:23).9 This is the last chance to repent; if it is refused now it will be too late (Luke 19:42-44).”

. . .

“In all it is no wonder that Jesus could be compared with Jeremiah, as a prophet of doom. Of course he did not gloat over the coming disaster: it was his own people whose downfall he predicted, and he did it in grief not in triumph. But the verdict, however unpalatable, is clear: the rebellion of God’s people has culminated in their rejection of his last call to repentance, and they are on the edge of disaster.”

. . .

3. The Rejection of the Jewish Nation?

Jesus “foresees nothing less than the total destruction of the Temple, of Jerusalem as a whole, and even of country towns like Bethsaida and Capernaum. And there is in his warnings an inescapable note of finality. The blood of all the prophets from the beginning will be required of this generation: it is the final reckoning. The Lucan version of the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem contains the solemn words, ‘These are the days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written’ (Luke 21:22). The note of climax we have seen in Jesus’ declaration that in him all the hopes of the Old Testament were finding fulfilment is paralleled by this idea of the coming disaster as the culmination of all Israel’s rebellion. Matters have come to a head, for good and evil.”
. . .

“The note of finality is even stronger in the metaphors used in Mark 13:24-25 in connection with the fall of Jerusalem.14 The words of these two verses are drawn from two Old Testament passages, Isaiah 13:10 and 34:4, which are predictions respectively of the fall of Babylon and of Edom. Here, as in many prophetic oracles, astronomical metaphors are used to depict catastrophic changes in the life of nations, and in both it is apparently the final destruction of the nations concerned that is in view. Jesus’ application of this prophetic imagery to the coming destruction of Jerusalem suggests a similar prediction of its final eclipse.”

4. Jesus as the True Israel

“Christian claims to be the true Israel often contain the assertion that it was in Jesus, the one true servant of God in contrast with the disobedience of the rest of the nation, that Israel’s ideal was realized and its destiny achieved, that the people of God became focused in this one true Son of God, so that Jesus is Israel, and it is to this fact that the Christian church, the body of those who are ‘in Christ’, owes its status as the people of God.”

“The Synoptic Gospels give some evidence of a tendency by Jesus to apply to himself, without further explanation, Old Testament texts which originally referred to Israel.”

. . .

5. The Church as the True Israel

“A common Old Testament metaphor for Israel is the flock of God. Jesus frequently takes this up, picturing himself as the shepherd, and his followers as the flock. In Luke 12:32 he addresses them as the ‘little flock’ to whom the Father will give the kingdom. He takes up Zechariah’s picture of the smitten shepherd, and applies it to himself and to his disciples as ‘the scattered sheep (Mark 14:27, quoting Zechariah 13:7). Thus an Old Testament figure for Israel is applied specifically and exclusively to the disciples.”

. . .

The “‘radicalism’ in Jesus’ view of the impact of his ministry is focused in one of his most deliberately significant acts, the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Variation in the wording of the different records does not affect the central point, that he presented the wine as his ‘blood of the covenant’. Whether or not the actual phrase ‘new covenant’ is taken to be original (with 1 Cor 11:25 and the longer text of Luke 22:20), Jeremiah’s new covenant prophecy (31:31-34) was undoubtedly in his mind. The phrase ‘blood of the covenant’ (in Mark and Matthew) alludes to Moses’ words in Exodus 24:8, the covenant ceremony from which Israel’s status as the people of God stemmed. It is this covenant that Jeremiah said would have to be replaced, and this Jesus is doing, sealing it with the sacrifice of his own death. It is his people, redeemed by his death, who ‘do this in remembrance of him’, who are the beneficiaries of this new covenant. It is they who are now the true people of God.”

. . .

“Two elements in the teaching of Jesus must therefore be held in balance, Israel, as represented by the Jewish nation of his day, can no longer be called the people of God, and a new covenant community is taking its place. Yet there is not a complete break, for this new community is the godly remnant of Israel, in whom all Israel’s hopes and ideals are coming to fulfilment. ‘The new community is still Israel; there is continuity through the discontinuity. It is not a matter of replacement but of resurrection.’”

. . .

“It seems, therefore, that, far from looking for some future regathering of the Jewish people to Palestine, Jesus actually took Old Testament passages which originally had that connotation, and applied them instead to the gathering of the Christian community from all nations, even, in one case, to the exclusion of some Jews! This is a graphic illustration of the conclusion towards which this section has been leading, that Jesus ‘saw in the circle of those who received his message the sons of the Kingdom, the true Israel, the people of God . . . who, having received the messianic salvation, were to take the place of the rebellious nation as the true Israel.”

. . .

6. Israel and the Jews

“Their rejection of Jesus’ appeal is the climax of their continued acts of rebellion, and their last chance to repent has been lost. They now face not only a temporary punishment such as they often received in the Old Testament period, but the final loss of their privileged status.”
. . .

His final words in this article well-capture his point: “A Christian use of the prophecies of the Old Testament can hardly ignore the hermeneutical lead given by Jesus and his disciples.” Amen!

Conclusion

This article only presents a selection of important conclusions stated by R. T. France. You really need to read his article to get his actual exegesis. Hopefully this has whetted your appetite. You perhaps can see why I always buy commentaries by R. T. France!

But now, are you hungry for more evidence about the error of dispensationalism’s view of Israel? Stay tuned. I will soon begin work on a new NiceneCouncil.com “Made Easy Series” book: “Israel Made Easy.”

Another Dispensationalist Recognizes the Literalism Error

2011-05-04T11:35:00.007-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.co

The average dispensationalists that you see on the streets holding signs that the end is near invariably defend their doomsday expectations on the basis of an alleged literalistic interpretation of Scripture. The next volume of NiceneCouncil.com’s DVD expose, The Late Great Planet Church (vol. 2), will explode this error (not literally, mind you: we will not use any pyrotechnic devices). But for now this blog will once again show the ground-shifting going on among intellectual dispensationalists (this should not be unexpected since dispensationalist are always excited about earthquakes, tsunamis, and such).

Dispensationalism is effectively suffering a brain-drain. Indeed, the book I will briefly report on in this blog is the theological equivalent of Draino. The book will help unclog the flimsy literalism system — if any best-selling dispensational author will read it (and I mean “it” literally: none of this simply reading the cover of the book, but the book itself).

The author of the book I will be dealing with, is Dr. D. Brent Sandy. He is Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana. (I attended its seminary, Grace Theological Seminary, for two years while I was still a dispensationalist. In fact, it was while I was a student at GTS that I raptured out of the system. Thus, for me Winona Lake ironically became Ground Zero in the collapse of my dispensationalism.) He has written an excellent book on hermeneutics titled: Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic (2002).

Be aware, I will not be reviewing this book. Also, please understand that I do not agree with every point Dr. Sandy makes. I will basically just cite some of his statements that undermine the dispensational hermeneutical system. His work is another of those academic books that demonstrate that dispensationalism is collapsing from within. I highly recommend your reading it, especially if you feel a sense of call to do mission work among the dispensationalists.

If you enjoy watching a theological system such as dispensationalism implode, you may want to pop some popcorn and read this nail-biter book. (I confess that I don’t normally recommend eating popcorn while reading such a page-turning thriller, but I will break that practice. My reason for not encouraging such generally is that I like popcorn so much that I try to discourage others from eating it so the world supply of popcorn will not be too greatly diminished. But since you are reading about pop-theology, popcorn seems quite appropriate.)

As you read the citations below keep in mind dispensationalism’s (alleged) sine qua non. One of the two leading sine qua non is: “Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation . . . . The dispensationalist claims to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody, 1995], 80). Not so anymore! Consider the following statements by this leading dispensational scholar.

On p. 45 Dr. Sandy asks a question regarding prophecy: “conditional or unconditional?” This of course is a key issue in demanding a future Davidic kingdom complete with a rebuilt temple and renewed sacrificial system. But Sandy states: “Can prophecies be conditional? Can prophecies be given in hyperbole? Unfortunately it is not always clear even in retrospect what parts of the covenant were unconditional, what parts conditional or what parts hyperbolic” (p. 47). So much for the plain, simple method of interpretation! I can hear the populist dispensationalists screaming “blasphemy!” while stopping up their ears and running from the bookstore.

In the conclusion to his chapter titled “What Makes Prophecy Problematic?” Sandy writes: “What makes prophecy problematic? To understand the prophetic word correctly, we must recognize that the language of prophecy may be poetic, emotive, conditional, hyperbolic, figurative, surreal, oral and uncertain about fulfillment” (p. 56). Whoa! This is not your grandmother’s dispensationalism (neither is it my grandmother’s dispensationalism — but I don’t suspect you are interested in what Mama Lanham believed, so I will forgo further discussion).

Notice that Sandy did not say: “What makes prophecy problematic? Nothing!” Nor did he say: “What makes prophecy problematic? To understand the prophetic word correctly, we must recognize that the language of prophecy may be poetic, emotive, conditional, hyperbolic, figurative, surreal, oral and uncertain about fulfillment — except where literal, which is most of the time.” Bravo!

On p. 64 he warns: “The point is, if we force all forms of language to play by one set of rules, we will be hopelessly confused.” Excellent!

Over and over again he expresses doubts about “face value” prophecy, which is a pet phrase found frequently in Ryrie and so many other dispensationalists. For instance, on p. 57 he cites several prophecies then asks:

“Do we take this language at face value? Will God really bring about each of these kinds of judgment and blessing? Will wild animals from all over the earth gorge themselves on sinners? Will rivers of milk flow through the countryside? Those things are certainly possible with an all-powerful God. But it is equally possible that such statements were not intended to be taken at face value.”

No saving face for this dispensationalist!

In several places in his book, Sandy refers to the word “forever” (e.g., 42, 98, 101, 222). This is significant for any “face value” approach to interpretation. And it is absolutely destructive of the dispensationalist linchpin argument that the Abrahamic Covenant promises Israel the Land “forever,” therefore requiring a future fulfillment in the Millennium (which itself is not forever!). Sandy lists the following verses stating this prophetic hope for Israel: Gen 13:15; Exo 32:13; 1 Kings 9:5. But then he has the nerve to list a good number of verses where “forever” obviously does not “designate perpetuity in the present world” with a “notion of its being without end” (p. 99).

Sandy even has the audacity to ask on pp. 98-99 regarding 2 Sam 7:9—11, 16 and Jer 33:17–18:

“But in what sense has David’s throne endured forever? In what sense have sacrifices been offered forever. There have been major interruptions: the destructions of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, by the Seleucids and by the Romans. It is certainly a curious way to think of forever if it only means part of the time.”

He argues and proves that “Forever may designate perpetuity only within earthly existence, it may be hyperbolic, and it may designate surely in the sense of intensification” (p. 101).

Dr. Sandy, though a dispensationalist teaching at a leading dispensational college, is not far from the kingdom!

P.S. If you can read this sentence you have excellent eyesight. If not, never mind.

Dispensationalism, Definition, Revelation, and Contradiction

2011-04-05T14:23:00.023-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Dispensationalism is a new, innovative, naive, peculiar, cumbersome, complicated, contradictory, and incoherent system of theology. Other than these problems, however, it is apparently quite compelling. It is compelling to tens of millions of Christians who themselves are often "innovative, naive, peculiar, cumbersome, complicated, contradictory, and incoherent" and who are usually captured when they are "new" to the Christian faith as recent converts. I know that was true for me as a young convert to Christ — until I raptured out of the system so that it was "left behind."

Let me explain what I mean in declaring dispensationalism to be such.

The Significance of Definition

Dispensationalism is big on definitions. And rightly so. Complicated and convoluted systems require definitions in an attempt to explain them to the uninitiated.

In chapters 2 and 3 of Charles Ryrie’s important and classic work Dispensationalism (1995), he discusses at length the whole question of definition. In fact, he opens chapter 2 with this sentence: "There is no more primary problem in the whole matter of dispensationalism than that of definition" (p. 23). Unfortunately, he must admit in the first sentence of the very next paragraph: "To say that there is a great lack of clear thinking on this matter of definition is an understatement. Both dispensationalist and non-dispensationalists are often guilty of lack of clarity."

Even the Foreword by Frank E. Gaebelein agrees that oftentimes dispensationalism’s own followers are confused: "dispensationalism has at times been the victim of its adherent who have pressed unwisely certain of its features." If the system is confusing to its enthusiastic followers, this surely explains why it is even more so to its concerned opponents. Definition, then, is crucial.

Yet even while defining the issues, dispensationalism begins to stumble — showing that the system is indeed cumbersome, complicated, contradictory, and incoherent. In this blog I will note that even in its own definition dispensationalism involves the system in dialectical tension that causes it to collapse from within. I will show this by focusing on the leading advocate of normative dispensationalism, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie.

But first let me briefly note:

The Significance of Ryrie

Dr. Ryrie was formerly professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and is a very important figure in the most popular form of dispensationalism. The Twentieth-Century Dictionary of Christian Biography (1995, p. 300) calls Ryrie "one of the key theologians supporting dispensationalism." The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (p. 385) declares that "he has made an inestimable contribution to the Christian world," noting that his "writings have consistently been on the theological cutting edge." In a recent festschrift in Ryrie’s honor, titled Dispensationalism Tomorrow and Beyond (2008, p. i), Dr. Christopher Cone presents him as "tremendously influential in the grounding of dispensational theology."

Ryrie published his most important and theologically influential book, Dispensationalism Today in 1966. This book was continuously in print in that edition until updated, revised, and given a new name in 1995: Dispensationalism. It has remained the standard for explaining and defending dispensationalism, being called a "classic text" in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (p. 385). Dr. Craig Blaising of Dallas Theological Seminary notes that "the importance of this work for the self-understanding of late twentieth-century dispensationalism cannot be overstated."

So then, my demonstrating Ryrie’s confusion in defining the system cannot be written off with a cavalier: "Oh, that’s just Jack Van Impe rambling away because he heard about an earthquake somewhere!" When its leading spokesman stumbles at the very level of definition, this is a serious problem for dispensationalism as a system.

(Please note: unless otherwise noted all page references below are to Ryrie’s Dispensationalism.)

The Significance of Errors

The very name "dispensationalism" raises the important question: "What is a ‘dispensation’?" If you are committed to a system called "dispensationalism," you certainly need to know what a "dispensation" is. Otherwise you would be as confused as a person who thinks he is a capitalist because he lives in the capital of Cuba.

Ryrie is no lightweight. He possesses great understanding of the system as such and exercises enormous influence as a proponent of it. According to him a "a concise definition of a dispensation is this: "A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose" (p. 28). This is a succinct and widely-held definition that no dispensationalist could reject and still remain a dispensationalist.

But before I move on, I must mention a second crucial matter of definition. According to dispensationalists theologians dispensational distinctions are God-revealed distinctions — thus, they are God-imposed historical realities. Ryrie notes that "distinguishing the dispensations is God’s, not man’s work" (p. 29). Regarding the relationship between two particular dispensations, Ryrie observes that "God himself through John make[s] these distinctions" (p. 36).

The revealed character of dispensations is extremely important. After all, it results in the elements defining each dispensation, which involve a "distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment" (p. 28). Note in this quotation that each dispensation involves a "distinctive revelation"— that is, a distinctive revelation from God. And this revelation obligates man to a particular "responsibility"during that specific dispensation — to God. And it results in a particular form of "testing" distinctive to that dispensation — which testing is designed by God for those people in their dispensational settings. Thus, the dispensational structure of history is revealed by God in his word, according to dispensationalists.

But as we can see in Ryrie’s attempt to explain dispensationalism serious problems arise. The claim to distinguishable dispensations as a revelation from God undermines the system as it is defined and presented.

It is crucial that we note the vital word "distinguishable." Each dispensation is distinguishable from the other. Therefore, however many dispensations there are, they must be distinguishable — by definition! The word "distinguishable" is important to Ryrie as we see how frequently it occurs in his discussion (29, 32, 34, 37, 38, etc.).

Indeed, Ryrie even notes that dispensations are "distinguishably different" (p. 29) because they involve "distinguishing features" (p. 29). Every dispensations’ features "are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them off from each other as different dispensations" (p. 29). Thus, they result in "definite and distinguishable distinctions" (p. 32), each of which individually "distinguishes each [dispensation] from the other" (p. 33). Ryrie notes of certain dispensations that "here is unquestionably a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world" (p. 34). Do you get the impression that the quality of distinguishableness is significant?

With these words in his chapters on definition, Ryrie has just shot himself in the foot. And all dispensationalism is limping because of it. But how so? Let me point out the following destructive tendencies in these definitional issues which (necessarily) involve "distinguishable" distinctions.

First, though the dispensations involve a "distinctive revelation" (p. 28), Ryrie admits of his own (and the majority view) that "a sevenfold scheme of dispensations is neither inspired nor nonnegotiable" (p. 51). How can this be if dispensations are: (1) "distinguishable" and (2) God-revealed? Why are not the distinct dispensations God-revealed if each has a "distinctive revelation"?

Second, Ryrie notes that the number of dispensations is not even a crucial matter in the debate: "Is the essence of dispensationalism the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system" (p. 38). Well, why not if God reveals distinguishable dispensations? This is like saying the number of persons in the Trinity is not crucial to the concept of the Trinity. If the dispensations are distinguishable, they ought then to be countable — and their number ought to be known and secure.

Third, Ryrie goes even further when he states: "the number of dispensations in a dispensational scheme and even the names of the dispensations are relatively minor matters. Presumably one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist" (p. 45). And in the final analysis he can say that his view of the number of dispensations is only "likely seven in number" (p. 56).

But now: what happens to their God-revealed character as distinguishable economies? And what of the obligations within each distinctive dispensation which devolve upon those living within their particular dispensation (rather than in another dispensation)? And what of dispensations being defined by particular testings from God peculiar to that and only that dispensation? This does not make sense. The number of dispensations, by the very nature of the case, must be significant, set, and secure — if the definition and God-revealed character of dispensationalism is true.

Fourth, Ryrie confesses that "most dispensationalists see seven dispensations in God’s plan (though throughout the history of dispensationalism they have not always been the same seven). Occasionally a dispensationalist may hold as few as four, and some hold as many as eight" (p. 46). How can this be? If there are four dispensations, then the revelation of God and the tests upon man will be different from a situation in which there are seven dispensations.

In fact, in a festschrift in honor of Ryrie, the editor himself argues for twelve dispensations! Christopher Cone in Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie (2008): "A synthetic overview accounting for God’s doxological purpose seems to unveil no less than 12 dispensational divisions in Scripture" (Cone, p. 150). This is incredible! Did God "reveal" four, seven, or twelve distinguishable dispensations? Dispensationalists are not sure!

Fifth, Ryrie argues all of this in the same book in which he warns: "the distinguishable yet progressive character of dispensational distinctions prohibits that they should be intermingled or confused as they are chronologically successive" (p. 37). He is quite logical when he demands that since the dispensations are "distinguishable" they cannot be "intermingled or confused" — otherwise they would not be distinguishable.

Yet, Ryrie admits that the number of dispensations remains uncertain — which means that some dispensationalists are intermingling or confusing the matter despite their own definition. And Ryrie himself even allows the prospect of various numbers of dispensations — despite his claim that they cannot be mingled or confused. I am confused!

Sixth, we find that, having gotten into his own hand-crafted coffin, Ryrie deftly drives in the final nail carefully securing it shut. And he does not use a thin-shank finish nail: this is one of those nails known as a HurriQuake Disaster Resistant Fastener. It cannot be pulled out once driven in. Here Ryrie commits a huge self-destructive error when he states: "The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within each of those various economies." This is a significant enough statement that is also cited on p. 82 of The Popular Encyclopedia of the Bible. But where is the problem?

This statement introduces dialectical tension into Ryrie’s whole argument: If we must understand God’s differing economies in order to properly interpret the revelation within each of those economies, should we not know exactly what each of those economies is? Should we not have a clear understanding that there are in fact seven — or four or twelve — specific dispensations? How can the system allow any number of dispensations if you must interpret the revelation within those economies?

Furthermore, Ryrie’s statement requires you to presuppose dispensationalism as a system before you can interpret the Scripture. We should think, though, that you must understand Scripture first, then draw out Scripture’s system. But this is not the case with dispensationalism, for Ryrie clearly states: "The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within each of those various economies."

Conclusion

Somehow dispensationalism keeps surviving one failed Antichrist prediction after another. It endures one failed rapture date after another. And what is worse, its best theologians have created an unduly complex system that is so burdensome that it incorporates internal contradictions. I don’t know how they do it and continue on. That is why I am "against Dispensationalism" (as per our blogsite name).

(By the way, to increase my books sales: I believe the Antichrist is a guy named Larry Cleveland and that the rapture will be on March 4 [(but I am not sure in what year].)

Prophecy and Literalism Revisited

2011-03-29T09:43:00.014-04:00

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Dispensationalists have a strong commitment to a literalistic hermeneutic. In fact, the leading dispensational theologian of the last part of the Twentieth Century, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, declared “consistent literalism” to be one of the three sine qua non of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists often speak of literalism as “plain interpretation.” Consequently, the average dispensationalist-in-the-pew reflexively (mindlessly) dismisses postmillennial and preterist interpretations due to their own naive commitment to (supposed) literalism. How shall we respond?

I would like to make three hermeneutical assertions that the Bible student should bear in mind in discussions with dispensationalists:

First, “consistent literalism” and grammatical-historical interpretation. The alleged “consistent literalism” of the dispensationalist is not the functional equivalent of “grammatical-historical” exegesis. The literalism principle is a sub-species of the grammatical-historical method, as even more recent dispensational theologians are beginning to admit. See works by former Dallas Theological Seminary professors Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, as well as other noted dispensationalists, such as Robert L. Saucy and John S. Feinberg. Blaising and Bock show that the claim to consistent literalism was never attainable in dispensationalism, but was really more-or-less a goal. Literalism is, in fact, an aberration of otherwise fundamentally sound principles. [1] We must drive this point home to our dispensational friends. While they write us off on interpretive issues, their own theologians are moving in our direction.

Dispensationalist theologians are now even forsaking so-called literalism. For instance, John S. Feinberg, a noted contemporary dispensationalist, complains of one of Ice’s mentors: “Ryrie is too simplistic” in his literalism. [2] Craig A. Blaising of Dallas Theological Seminary warns that: “consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism. Development is taking place on how to characterize a proper hermeneutic for dispensationalists.” [3]

As Carson observes in his exposition of Matthew 24 (which forms the backdrop to John’s Revelation): “Untutored Christians are prone to think of prophecy and fulfillment as something not very different from straightforward propositional prediction and fulfillment. A close reading of the NT reveals that prophecy is more complex than that.” [4] In his comments on Matthew 24 renowned Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson agrees that “literalism is not appropriate in this apocalyptic eschatology.” [5] Moody Bible Institute dispensationalist scholars Pate and Haines warn: “It is in the failure to grasp the interplay between prose and poetry that doomsday prophets make a major mistake, overemphasizing the literal meaning to the neglect of the symbolic.” [6]

Second, the distinction between figurative and spiritual language. We must be careful to distinguish between a “figurative” use of language (a legitimate function of the grammatical-historical method) and a “spiritual” interpretive methodology. Misunderstanding this distinction is a major source of confusion among dispensationalists. Their misconception allows them an easy way out: they simply write off all non-dispensational interpretations as inherently liberal.

Dispensationalists must be shown that figurative expressions portray historical events. They do not discount objective history. Figurative language paints actual historical events by means of colorful, dramatic, and overdrawn descriptions.

Spiritual interpretation is different, however. It is a system of hermeneutics that evacuates all historical sense from a text in order to replace it with an abstract spiritual reality. Charges of “spiritualization,” though common in such debates as ours, are far afield when one is merely interpreting figurative language. As premillennialist commentator Robert Mounce notes: “That the language of prophecy is highly figurative has nothing to do with the reality of the events predicted. Symbolism is not a denial of historicity but a matter of literary genre.” [7]

Third, the Old Testament hermeneutical backdrop. We must be alert to the Old Testament warrant for occasional figurative interpretation. As noted New Testament commentator William Lane notes of the Olivet Discourse: “The OT plays an essential part in the structure and imagery of the prophetic discourse.” [8] The Old Testament prophets frequently use figurative language dramatically to portray future events. Christ, who is “the prophet” par excellence, employs their method in his Olivet Discourse.

All of this is especially important when we approach the Book of Revelation. Only the most naive of interpreters would claim that we must interpret Revelation in a “consistent literal” fashion. Unfortunately, there are millions of naive interpreters in the American pews today.

A dispensational objection. Some dispensationalists will object: “You say something is symbolic. But as I read the text, the Bible clearly states the matter. Therefore, you are imposing your view on Scripture.” How shall we respond? Are we at a stand-off? I think not. Notice the following:

(1) Actually all texts require interpretation. To say that “a text must be symbolic” is no more an imposition on the text by man that to say “a text must be literal.” The problem remains: Which man’s approach do you believe?

(2) We must ask: Can God speak symbolically? Is he confined to literalism as the only method of communication? After all, we speak symbolically often enough: “My love is a red, red rose”; “My world is falling in on me.”

(3) Consider the vision in Revelation 5: In 5:6 we read “I saw a lamb standing.” Is that an actual animal that we know as a lamb, a ruminant animal of the genus Ovis? Or does it represent symbolically something else, Jesus Christ? When we read the text, it becomes very clear that he is speaking of Jesus as if he were a lamb: 5:8-10 have angels singing to him of the salvation he has wrought. 5:12 ascribe honor and glory to the “lamb.” 5:13 puts the “lamb” on equality with God. 5:14 engages in heavenly worship of the “lamb.” In Rev. 14:1’ the “lamb” is in heaven with the redeemed. In 14:4 the saved follow the “lamb,” having been saved for God and the “lamb.”

END NOTES
[1] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism: An Up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought (Wheaton, Ill.: Bridgepoint, 1993), 36-37. In fact, such an attempt is evidence of “conceptual naivete.” Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 29.

[2] John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 73.

[3] Craig A. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra (579), 272.

[4] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:27.

[5] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 1:193.

[6] C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines, Jr., Doomsday Delusions: What’s Wrong with Predictions About the End of the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 27.

[7] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 218.

[8] William L. Lane, Gospel According to Mark (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 449.

Even Their Scholars Descend into Absurdity

2011-03-08T10:24:00.019-05:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director of NiceneCouncil.com

I have long made the distinction between scholarly dispensationalists (e.g., Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and sometimes Dwight Pentecost) and the populist dispensationalists (e.g., Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and anyone else with book sales over 15 billion copies). I did this out of respect for the more thoughtful presentations in the scholars' writings. But now I don’t know what possessed me to do this. Let me explain and illustrate the blurring of the lines separating populist dispensationalists from the “scholarly” ones.

Generally the “scholarly” dispensationalists present the more theological and exegetical foundations for the system. Whereas the populists run grinning and skipping full-bore into date-setting, rapture-predicting, Antichrist-portending, Armageddon military-operation-plan describing (OPLANs), newspaper-exegeting, system-contradicting inane, vacuous, absurd, silly, vapid, pointless, fatuous, insubstantial slop. They do this for the mere pleasure of fleecing the sheep of untold millions of dollars of their non-invested, discretionary funds.

However, I have begun to question this distinction between populist and scholar in dispensationalism. And I even wonder why I ever allowed such a distinction. Though it is true that the populists never attempt any scholarly-sounding, exegetically-rigorous, theologically-astute presentations of their system, it is most certainly not true that the “scholars” are not lured into crass money-making publications. Consider the following books by the more reputable dispensationalist “scholars” Ryrie and Walvoord. (I believe that Pentecost also wrote one, but fortunately I have lost it.)

Walvoord published his newspaper-exegesis book Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis: What the Bible Says about the Future of the Middle East and the End of Western Civilization in 1974 and again in 1976. Then when the first Gulf War broke out, he revised and re-released it in 1990 whereupon it became a multi-million bestseller, making him so much money that he had to invest it in long-term real estate ventures.

Walvoord not only provides devotional readings from the newspapers, avoids indexing the book, and resists footnotes (as do populists), but he provides a table of “Prophetic Events in History Beginning with the Babylonian Captivity” (on pp. 107–08). And what are some of these “prophecies” (none of which should be occurring in the church age while awaiting the signless, imminent rapture)? Here are a few that may surprise you (I know they surprised the aluminum storm door salesman that came by my house yesterday):

• "1945: Rise of Russia and Communism to power."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Who would have known this would occur in 1945? This is an amazing prophecy. Of course, once you break the number down you will see obvious clues: 1 stands for the first commandment; 9 for number of centuries lived by Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Jared, Methuselah, Noah, Peleg (Gen 5; 9:29; 11:19); 4 for the number of Jacob’s sons whose name starts with the letter “j” [Judah and Joseph] multiplied by 2; 5 is a number often thought of while milking four-uddered cows.)

• "1946: Beginning of world government: United Nations formed."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Notice prophecy’s strange silence about “cheese.”)

• "1948: Israel established as a nation in the land: third return."
(Gentry comment and analysis: This date was necessary to get us into the age of television which would give rise to tele-evangelism.)

• "1956: Israel extends territory."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Carefully notice how this is but eight years after 1948. Need I say more?)

• "1967: Israel regains territory."
(Gentry comment and analysis: This is not the year of the invention of aluminum foil. Though on January 5 of this year Spain and Romania sign in Paris an agreement establishing full consular and commercial relations, though, sadly, not diplomatic ones.)

• "1975: Egypt reopens the Suez Canal."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Though apparently there is no clear prophecy discussing the original dredging of the Suez and the actual building of this particular canal.)

• "1979: Camp David Accords: peace with Egypt."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Little did Jimmy Carter know he was the subject of biblical prophecy, though obviously before he occurred in history peanuts had to be invented. This co-ordination of events then becomes a remarkable demonstration of God’s providence. Sadly though, peanut butter was invented before peanuts themselves, then had to await the later arrival of its main ingredient. Consequently, it originally sold very poorly as a jar of brown butter.)

• "1982: Israel attacks PLO in Lebanon."
(Gentry comment and analysis: I wish he had given the Bible verse backing up this one. I know the letters “p,” “l,” and “o” occur in Scripture, but they appear to be randomly placed rather than carefully articulated. Of course, their “gap theory” may account for this for we note that all three of these letters occur in their proper order in Gen 2:9: “And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is Pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of Life also in the midst Of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This cannot be sheer chance. Unless of course you suppose that 1,000,000 monkies typing on 1,000,000 typewriters for 1,000,000 years produced The Late Great Planet Earth -- a view I confess to holding when I was a cartoon character.)

• "1990: Saddam Hussein, in preparation to attack Israel, seizes Kuwait."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Hussein’s name is difficult to find in biblical prophecy [though not impossible if you are double-jointed]. However, “Kuwait” is found all over both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I think.)

And what of Charles Ryrie, perhaps the most important, articulate, and prominent of dispensationalism’s “scholars”? In 1976 he presented the waiting world with The Living End, which was described on the cover as: “Enlightening and astonishing disclosures about the coming last days of earth.” In 1982 he released The Bible and Tomorrow’s News. Then during the first Gulf War he re-released it as The Final Countdown and enjoyed reprints in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and beyond (I quit buying it after the fourth reprint so I don’t know how many more followed. And I am too tired to look it up.)

I will provide just one more disappointing evidence of absurdity among these “scholars.” In Walvoord’s Prophecy in the New Millennium (2001) we read the following discussion of the massive New Jerusalem:

“Clearly, the New Jerusalem could not rest on the earth because it is described as such a huge city that it would blot out the whole Promised Land, making impossible the fulfillment of other elements of the millennial kingdom. . . . It would have to be a satellite city, situated in space. . . . It may be that those who have been resurrected or translated will live in this satellite city over the earth.”

Consequently, though I will tip my hat to the likes of Ryrie and Walvoord in their attempts to establish secure foundations for the dispensational system, I will not be as quick to point to them as scholars who are immune from the lures of populism and absurdity. Such temptations are endemic to the whole system which reads like a rejected script from television’s Hee-Haw. Junior Samples refused to lower himself to such far-fetched scenarios. He was afraid it would hurt his used car business.

Defending Christianity?

2010-11-24T10:05:00.002-05:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director NiceneCouncil.com

The header to our blogsite is: AgainstDispensationalism.com: Defending Christianity.” One of our blog readers, Rick Warden, a missionary and strongly conservative Christian, responded to my last blog (“Dispensationalism’s Progress Death” Part 2) and complained about our blog’s header. As a committed dispensationalist he is disturbed about several aspects of our blog heading, as well as its mission and content.

We welcome Mr. Warden’s concerns and would like to respond to them, partly to clarify our mission and partly to defend it. Our response may help others who have similar questions. Warden is not the first person on “planet Earth” (see: we can speak dispensationalese) to raise questions about our mission.

Our Purpose

Mr. Warden’s first comment against our website regards its header or title. He complains: “Your blog title states ‘defending Christianity’ as if dispensationalism is non-Christian. Can you prove that or at least make an attempt to back it up?”

In reply I would begin by noting that we do not believe dispensationalism is “non-Christian” at all. All those associated with NiceneCouncil.com (the sponsor of the blog) were at one time dispensationalists ourselves. Thus, we know quite well that dispensationalists are strongly evangelical Christians, just as we were while in the movement.

However, though recognizing dispensationalism as a form of evangelical Christianity, we believe that it is a seriously defective, misguided, embarrassing, and naive form. Perhaps our brief header is too brief. Actually our header “Defending Christianity” means: “Defending the integrity of Christianity against one of its most embarrassing advocates, dispensationalism.” But that is too long a title, and as Warden complains our blog is already “long-winded.” Consequently, it would not make an effective title. Besides, our title served its purpose: it pulled Warden in to see what is going on.

Our Rationale

But now what do I mean by stating that we are defending the integrity of Christianity? Simply put: dispensationalism is a humiliating embarrassment to the integrity and majesty of the full-fledged Christian worldview is embodied in Scripture. Dispensationalism leaves the impression that the Christian faith is a naive and incompetent faith commitment. Scores of scholarly works point to dispensationalism as evidence of the naivete of the Christian faith itself. Just consider a few works as samples of scholarly criticisms that highlight dispensationalism: Paul Boyer’s, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Daniel Wojcik, The End of the World As We Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America. Bernard McGinn’s Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum. In fact, I am not feeling good right now and will have to finish this posting later....

There. Now I am back. Where was I? Oh, yes:

And why should these secular scholars not write-off the Christian faith (as dominated by multi-million bestselling dispensationalist works) as a serious philosophy of life? Think of Edgar C. Whisenant’s Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988 and Hal Lindsey’s 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon. Think of the book titles that flooded the market before the year 2000:

• Faird, Gorbachev! Has the Real Antichrist Come? (1988)
• Lindsey, Planet Earth -- 2000: Will Mankind Survive? (1994).
• Sumrall, I Predict 2000 (1987).
• Lewis, Prophecy 2000: Rushing to Armageddon (1990).
• Terrell, The 90’s: Decade of the Apocalypse (1992).
• Hunt, How Close Are We?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ (1993).
• Graham, Storm Warning (1992).
• Ryrie, The Final Countdown (1991).
• Jeffries, Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny (1988).
• McKeever, The Rapture Book: Victory in the End Times (1987).
• McAlvanny, et al., Earth’s Final Days (1994).
• Marrs, et al., Storming Toward Armageddon: Essays in Apocalypse (1992).
• Liardon, Final Approach: The Opportunity and Adventure of End-Times Living (1993).
• Webber and Hutchins, Is This the Last Century? (1979).

Even fellow premillennialists bemoan dispensationalism’s tendencies in this direction. One premillennialist admits: “The premillenarians’ credibility is at a low ebb because they succumbed to the temptation to exploit every conceivably possible prophetic fulfillment. . . . It is not likely that the situation will change greatly.” (Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now!, 218).

Premillennialist Craig L. Blomberg bemoans that “a frightening percentage of the evangelical Christian public seems always to suffer a collective amnesia, forgetting how the same kinds of publications just a decade or two earlier turned out to include a considerable amount of false prophecy. The one statistic that remains unvarying is that to date, 100 percent of all such scenarios have proved wrong,” because of engaging in “the next round of speculation.” (Blomberg and Chung, Historic Premillennialism, 70.)

Warden continues stating his reasons for disappointment with our blog: “From what I’ve read of your blog, it is long-winded, filled with hyperbole and lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism. When people freely throw around hyperbole it is a sign that evidence is lacking. ”

This complaint involves two unfortunate statements. First, he is dealing with only “what I’ve read of your blog,” which shows he has not read all of our blogs, and is basing his surmise on partial evidence. Who knows what he has read on our blog? He doesn’t say.

Second, he complains that is “lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism.” But this flows out of his first problem: a partial reading of our blog. It also shows that he expects too much from a blog. We have several published books and video projects that provide deep and serious treatments of dispensationalism, as you can see by checking our webstore at NiceneCouncil.com. We also post a number of focused articles critiquing dispensationalism at NiceneCouncil.com. But then, Mr. Warden expresses a concern about our being “long-winded.” So I am not sure our books would work for him. Anti-dispensationalism is hard to reduce to a bumper sticker.

Finally, Mr. Warden complains: “Dispensationalism is not dying and neither are the prophecies.” We must understand that for any very large entity to die can take time. Massive red giant stars will eventually collapse in on themselves and explode into a supernova. And they are considered short-lived stars to begin with (due to their massive weight which accelerates their eruption). But even still they don’t die overnight. Their enormous size creates strong, internal countervailing internal forces within the star’s nucleus that balance out the gravitational weight problem. For awhile.

This is like dispensationalism: it is such a large behemoth that its death will take a long time. Furthermore, given its inherent naivete — which allows its adherents to tolerate one failed Antichrist prediction after another and which can endure one erroneous rapture prediction after another — we can’t expect the system to die quickly. Dispensationalists are adept at grinning and bearing it.

Nevertheless, it is dying. And as we have pointed out: it dying from a brain-drain. Many of its scholars are opting out; others are radically transforming the system into what it has never been. Read the dominant dispensationalist’s vehement attacks on progressive dispensationalism. Fear is in their words: their beloved system is collapsing within.

We agree that the prophecies of the Bible do not fail of their purposes. But the prophecies of dispensationalists constantly fail. Again, review the titles listed above. As we have said many times: Dispensationalism is embarrassing itself to death.

Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death (Part 2)

2010-11-16T08:53:00.006-05:00

Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death (Part 2)

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

My previous blog post reviewed an article by progressive dispensationalist, Dr. Robert Chisholm of Dallas Theological Seminary. In that review I noted that Chisholm’s observations effectively drive a stake in the heart of dispensationalism. But I did not give a complete review of his article. Consequently, one Anonymous respondent wondered if my blog failed of its purpose.

In this follow-up blog I will present a related observation regarding the interpretation of prophecy that serves as the second of the one-two punch Chisholm lands on his own theology. This still falls under the category of “progressive dispensationalism” in that Chisholm favorably cited this material in his own article, though he did not press home the point.

I am referring to the chapter by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. that appears in J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, eds., The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke (2000) on pages 180-203.. That chapter is titled: “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” So now I will offer a brief summary and review of Reformed theologian Pratt’s article which was endorsed by progressive dispensationalist theologian Chisholm. This article takes an additional important step for undermining the dispensational method of prophetic interpretation regarding Israel’s future.

Pratt’s Point

In Pratt’s article he opens with a lament regarding the naive and reckless enthusiasm of dispensational populists (whom he obliquely refers to as “North American evangelicals”). He complains that their “enthusiasm” for prophecy has caused them to “become monomaniacal in their interpretation of biblical prophecy” (p. 180).

Basically he argues that historical contingencies affect the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. As does Chisholm in his article, he points out that many biblical prophecies do not find fulfillment in the expected literalistic fashion that we often expect. He argues that this “failure” of prophecy to occur according to our expectations does not undermine “the immutability of God’s character and eternal decrees” (p. 181). That is, this “failure” does not prove God a liar nor does it dismiss the eternal nature of his decrees.

He argues from Scripture that “divine providence provides a perspective that complements divine immutability” (p. 183). That is, God is behind both the eternal decree and historical providence, and that one does not contradict, but rather complements the other. He continues:

“Old Testament prophets revealed the word of the unchanging Yahweh, but they spoke for God in space and time, not before the foundations of the world. By definition, therefore, they did not utter immutable decrees but providential declarations. For this reason, we should not be surprised to find that intervening historical contingencies, especially human reactions, had significant effects on the way predictions were realized. In fact, we will see that Yahweh often spoke through his prophets, watched the reactions of people, and then determined how to carry through with his declarations.”

Three Kinds of Predictions

Pratt then outlines and discusses “three kinds of predictions: (1) predictions qualified by conditions, (2) predictions qualified by assurances, and (3) predictions with out qualifications” (p. 183).

1. Predictions qualified by conditions. Of course, everyone recognizes that when a prophecy expressly mentions conditions, those conditions will affect the outcome of the prophecy. Pratt surveys several conditional prophecies, such as Isa 1:19–20; 7:9; Jer 7:5–7; 22:4–5). For instance, Isaiah 7:9 declares: “If you are not faithful, then you will not stand at all.” This is clearly conditional and affects the historical outcome of the prophecy. Of course, the problem for many populist prophecy-enthusiasts (who usually designate themselves “prophecy experts”) is: they almost never admit this truth about prophecy.

2. Predictions qualified by assurances. These prophecies include announcements of inescapable doom or of God’s refusal to reverse himself or of oath-bound prophecies. Samples include: Jeremiah 7:15–16; 11:11, 14; 14:10; Ezekiel 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 20:3; 33:27; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6. Pratt observes that “we must remember that these kinds of predictions are few in number and usually not very specific in their descriptions of the future” (p. 187). The very existence of these few prophecies clearly indicate “that not all predictions shared this heightened certainty,” otherwise these assurances would have been wholly unnecessary to state.

3. Predictions without qualifications. Pratt notes that “the OT abounds with examples of unqualified predictions of events that did not take place” (p. 187). He lists a few samples, such as Jonah 3:10; 2 Chr 12:5–8; 3 Kings 22:16–20. For instance, “what caused these turns of events? Each text explicitly sights [sic] human responses as the grounds for the deviations. The people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6), the leaders of Judah (2 Chr 12:6), Josiah (2 Kgs 22:18–19), and Hezekiah (Jer 26:19) repented or prayed upon hearing the prophetic word” (pp. 187–88). This shows that prophecies contained implied conditions. This also is not admitted by traditional dispensationalists.

Pratt then cites Calvin’s Institutes (1:17:14): “Even though [the prophets] make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that these nonetheless contain a tacit condition” (p. 188). Pratt then points to the lesson we learned from the image of God as the potter. He argues that “the universal perspective of Jer 18:1–12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 189).

Historical Contingencies and Expectations

In his next section (pp. 191–95) Pratt asks the question: “If human responses could affect the way Yahweh directed history afer a prediction, how did prophets or their listeners have any secure expectations for the future?” (p. 191).

To answer this question he points out that “the covenantal parameters surrounding Yahweh and his people provided a basis for many expectations, but they did not settle every question. They set limits, but much latitude existed within these boundaries” (p. 192). Regarding any given prophecy: “Latitude remained. . . . When? How? By whom? How long? These more specific questions remained unanswered for the prophets and their audiences” (p. 193).

I would point out in this regard that when we come to the New Testament and the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, we discover that “how” God blesses Israel is different from the way that the Jews (and dispensationalists) expected. He blesses her through the salvation of a remnant and by re-constituting Israel by making even Gentiles “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The Church of Jesus Christ is “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).

Therefore we must understand what the last great old covenant prophet John the Baptist (Matt 3:9) stated when he warned Israel: “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” And ultimately Israel’s salvation comes on the same terms and in the same manner as the salvation of Gentiles, rather than through their exaltation (as per dispensational theology).

Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death

2010-11-03T10:47:00.005-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Dispensationalism is changing. And as it does so, it is dying; death is the most radical form of change for a living entity. Just think of the death of the prehistoric creature known as the Freborg. They no longer exist anywhere in the world. (The Freborg had the wings of an eagle, the body of a lion, and the head of an accountant. A terrifying image.)

In this blog article I will show that dispensationalism’s death is being effected by suicide. Apparently no amount of embarrassment and humiliation has been able to discomfit dispensational pew-sitters. Like the Eloi in “The Time Machine” they mindlessly wander about to their doom. They drift into Christian bookstores and pick up the latest mind-numbing, apocalyptic drivel. Neither wrong rapture dates nor wrong Antichrist spottings phase erstwhile dispensationalists. Their motto is: “Grin and Bear It.” But now we see that suicide might just do the trick. But first let me give a brief history lesson.

A Brief History Lesson
In the early 1990s Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising led the establishment of what is known as “progressive dispensationalism.” In presenting the changes they effected in the dispensational system, they described three major phases of dispensationalism:

(1) Classic dispensationalism, which was promoted by J. N. Darby through C. I. Scofield to L. S. Chafer. Key components of its success can be traced to Larkin’s charts and Scofield’s Bible.

(2) Revised dispensationalism, which was promoted by Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and the New York Times Bestseller List. It is called “revised” because of the major revision of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was revised in 1967 to become the “New Scofield Reference Bible.”

(3) Progressive dispensationalism, which is being promoted by Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucey, and others. It is called “progressive” because it no longer sees the seven dispensations as discrete, impermeable units of time. Rather dispensations are gradually unfolding, progressing stages of historical development. That is, older forms of dispensationalism kept each dispensation separate as self-contained, never-merged units, whereas “progressive” dispensationalism sees the seeds of the next dispensation already forming in the preceding one and anticipating the changes to come. Progressives are under vigorous attack by the Revised dispensationalists who have published numerous articles, chapters, and books raising the alarm about the radical changes the progressives are effecting.

But now: Why do I believe dispensationalism is committing suicide? In the first place I should note that dispensationalism has suffered a “brain drain.” And as is so often the case, living without a brain is difficult — if not downright tedious. The leaders of the older form of dispensationalism are now populist, sensationalist, televangelist types such as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and the other guys whose books crowd the shelves of Christian bookstores with excited alarms of the approaching end. But the progressive dispensationalists are producing many academic studies — even outside the field of eschatology. They are showing themselves to be noteworthy and impressive scholars.

This leads me to my second point, which is really my main point: Progressive dispensationalists are not only moving dispensationalism in a more covenantal direction, but are establishing principles that wreck the dispensational system. By way of illustration I will give a brief review of a remarkable article in the latest Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 2010, pp. 561-578): “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic.” Dr. Chisholm is chair and professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. I even went to seminary with him at Grace Theological Seminary — when I was a dispensationalist. You really need to order this article through your local public library’s inter-library loan department. You will thank me for this tidbit.

Jerry Johnson and I are currently working on the script for Late Great Planet Church, volume 2. This article came at just the right time since we will be exposing some of the key errors in dispensationalism (particularly their naive hermeneutic and their love affair with Israel).
In this blog I will not provide a full review of “When Prophecy Fails.” I will simply highlight a few of its key observations which will provide forensic evidence proving suicide. This evidence will show how this dispensationalist is driving a stake through dispensationalism’s heart.

Before I even do that, though, you must bear in mind the following theological truth: Israel is the center of the dispensationalist eschatological system. In fact, an exalted future for Israel in the millennium is the main reason progressive dispensationalists are still dispensationalists. They see a future for Israel restored to the land and offering sacrifices, which makes them differ from historic premillennialists (though they differ from the more popular dispensationalists by not publishing full-color wall charts or playing “Name the Antichrist” or “Guess the Latest Date for the Rapture” games).

Now for the overview (I simply must get back to working on the Late Great Planet Church script; so I will have to be brief.) Note that parenthetical page references are to the JETS article by Chisholm.

Article Overview

Dr. Chisolm begins his article by pointing out something that most Christians do not realize: “A close analysis of OT prophecy reveals that many prophecies were not fulfilled either in part or in whole” (p. 561). He quickly dismisses “two extremes” in responding to this problem: (1) The liberal view which denies supernatural revelatory prophecy. (2) The popular evangelical view which assigns all such unfulfilled prophecy to the final days of history, the eschaton.

Chisholm then makes the following observation which is a two-pronged stake in the heart of dispensationalism: “Prophecy can appear to ‘fail’ if we approach it with a faulty hermeneutic that treats it as inherently unconditional and demands precise fulfillment of any and all details” (p. 561). The two deadly prongs here are: (1) This undermines revised dispensationalism’s second sine qua non: interpretive literalism. (2) This also destroys dispensationalism’s first sine qua non regarding Israel. That is, it removes one of dispensationalism’s strongest arguments for a future for Israel in returning to the land to rule the world and kill sheep: If prophecy is conditional (not “unconditional”) and if it does not demand “precise fulfillment of any and all details” then Israel’s future may not be what dispensationalists depend on it being.

Wow! In one statement Chisholm has driven the stake in the heart of dispensationalism. And he has done so by using a ten ton vibratory pile hammer operating by an intricate system of counter-rotating eccentric weights, powered by hydraulic motors which reduce horizontal vibrations so that its full power may be transmitted vertically into the pile. Well done!

The article shows that prophecy is dynamic, intending either to change or encourage the hearers rather than simply to record the future in advance. Chisholm notes that prophecy “announces God’s intentions conditionally and is intended to motivate a positive response” so that “the prophecy’s predictive element is designed to prevent (in the case of judgment announcement) or facilitate (in the case of a salvation announcement) its fulfillment” (p. 563). That is, prophecy has a hortatory dimension, which means that it seeks to encourage good behavior by promising (conditionally!) blessings in the future or to warn against bad behavior by threatening judgment.
In a section titled “The Contingent Nature of Prophetic Language” Chisholm proves his point by several lines of evidence from the Old Testament.

His first point presents Jeremiah 18 as the key illustration of the matter. He demonstrates that the potter (God) improvises his plan for the clay (Israel) which shows that he can change his (apparent) plan for her. Citing Richard L. Pratt (author of another excellent article in this regard): “The universal perspective of Jer 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 564). The classic illustration of the implied condition in prophecy is Jonah’s prophecy threatening that Nineveh will be destroyed in forty days (Jon 3:4). Though no conditions were mentioned, the prophecy did not come to pass. Because the implied condition allowed for repentance to remove the judgment threat.

Secondly, Chisholm argues that Micah 3:12 is “the clearest example of God’s relenting from a conditional announcement of judgment” (p. 566). There Micah announces that Zion will be destroyed (Mic 3:1-11). Hezekiah understood this prophecy as threatening imminent doom (Jer 26:18-19). But in Jeremiah 26:17-19 Hezekiah repents, which leads the Lord to withdraw the threat. Micah’s prophecy does not come to pass.

Third, in 2 Kings 22:15-20 Huldah prophesies that Josiah would die in peace and not witness Jerusalem’s destruction. But in 2 Kings 23:29-30 Josiah is killed in battle — hardly an example of dying in peace!

Chisholm provides several other clear evidences of prophecy functioning as a goad to either repentance from sin or continuance in righteousness. This is prophecy’s main point: to either dynamically alter or effectively reinforce a people’s moral/spiritual condition, not to foretell the future for political pundits.

Dispensationalism’s Ultimate Death

I believe Chisholm is correct in his view of the conditional nature and dynamic purpose of prophecy. And if he is correct, dispensationalism is no longer theologically viable.
On Chisholm’s principles we can argue that the future of Israel is not necessarily to involve a return to the land to rule the world and re-establish the temple sacrificial system. The dynamic purpose of Old Testament prophecies of Israel’s future glory were intended to encourage faithfulness. But Israel rejected all of her prophets and then when God finally sent his Son, they said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and seize his inheritance” (Matt 21:38). As a result, God gave them a final forty years after Christ to repent and turn to him.

Tragically, Israel did not repent and her temple was destroyed in AD 70. As a result, Israel’s prophetic hope of future world-dominion will not be fulfilled in the literal terms of the Old Testament hope. We should not be surprised at this for Jesus himself taught:

“I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 811-12).

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” (Matt 21:43).

Millennial Absurdity

2010-09-28T07:55:00.004-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Though dispensationalism appears to be more interested in the Great Tribulation than in the Milllenial Reign of Christ (judging from the number of books on these topics and their multi-million sales), this really might be a good strategy for dispensationalists. For once someone looks into the Millennium proposed by the system, so many red flags start popping out all over that one would think you were at a University of Alabama football game at home.

One of the more bizzare elements of the Millennium is that for 1000 years resurrected saints will dwell among unresurrected sinners and saints. And to top it all off: at the end of the thousand years the unresurrected sinners will rebel against the 1000 year old, never-dying resurrected saints.

Another strange factor of the dispensationalist Millennium -- the one we will be focusing on -- is the inherent racism controlling it. Despite the fact that the new covenant established by Christ made Jew and Gentile equal in God's eyes (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), the most glorious era of history will remove that equality. What is more, it will place the saved, living Gentile nations on the lowest level of the Millennium where they will be the servants of the Jews.

In the following quotes we find evidence of this racial inequality, of this elevation of the Jew, and the denigration of the Gentile.

"God has two distinct purposes — one for Israel and one for the Church."1

"Israel, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored through this period."2

"The Gentiles will be Israel’s servants during that age. . . . The nations which usurped authority over Israel in past ages find that downtrodden people exalted and themselves in subjection in their kingdom. And these are not unsaved Gentiles: The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission."3

"The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land will be head over all the nations of the earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Gentile nations. . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations."4

"God will keep his original promises to the fathers and will one day convert and place Israel as the head of the nations."5

"Israel will be a glorious nation, protected from her enemies, exalted above the Gentiles. . . . In contrast to the present church age in which Jew and Gentile are on an equal plane of privilege, the millennium is clearly a period of time in which Israel is in prominence and blessing. . . . Israel as a nation will be exalted."6

"In the millennium Israel as a nation will rule over the Gentiles."7

"The whole point of this passage [Ro 11] revolves around Israel’s being restored to a position of preeminence as a believing nation."8

"The biblical teaching [is] that the coming millennial kingdom will have its headquarters in Jerusalem with the Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with national Israel restored to its place of supremacy over the nations."9

The ACLU will have their hands full if this proposal sticks. No! I take that back. Since those on the lowest level are the saved, living Gentile nations, this may work just fine for that august union. This effectively puts Christians beneath Jews.

Footnotes:

1. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 85.
2. Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 149.
3. Pentecost, Things to Come, 508.
4. Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialism," in Clouse, Meaning of the Millennium, 81.
5. House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 175.
6. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 136, 302–303.
7. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israelology, Doctrine of," Popular Encyclopeida of Bible Prophecy, 201.
8. Lindsey, Road to Holocaust, 176.
9. Hunt, Whatever Happened to Heaven?, 246.

Stone by Stone

2010-09-14T09:21:00.005-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

From time-to-time when I speak at conferences on the Olivet Discourse, I will have dispensationalists raise a question that they believe presents a problem for the preterist interpretation. I have even seen this in some published articles and books. Perhaps you have heard it yourselves. In fact, I know at least one of you have because you wrote me to ask me about it!

Now what is this challenge that some raise against the AD 70 fulfillment of the first portion of the Olivet Discourse? The challenge is:

How can you teach that AD 70 fulfills Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24:3? After all, that verse says “not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” But we all know that the huge Wailing Wall that exists today was a part of the temple.

In reply I would note the following:

First, the Wailing Wall is a portion of the retaining wall of the foundation of the temple, it is not a part of the temple building itself. The entire usable temple structure was demolished stone-by-stone. Josephus writes:

Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind. (J.W. 7:1:1)

Jesus prophesied while the temple stood and functioned. Before the Roman siege the temple was a magnificent structure that perfectly functioned as a temple for worship. In fact, Jesus’ prophecy is given just after he came out of the temple and was going away (Matt 24:1). After the siege the temple was a mass of rubble with only a few of its foundation stones remaining together. It was no longer magnificent; it was no longer suitable for worship. The “temple buildings” (Matt 24:1) were destroyed stone-by-stone.

Archaeologists report from their investigations regarding the temple:

"Absolutely nothing survives of the Temple built by Herod." (Kathleen Kenyon, The Bible and recent Archaeology [London: British Museum, 1978], 85-86)

"The Temple is gone. Not a stone, not a trace, remains." (J. L. Porter, Jerusalem, Bethany, and Bethlehem [London: Nelson, 1887], 52)

"The location of the actual Temple, the central problem, cannot yet be ascertained." (Michael Avi-Yonah, "Jerusalem of the Second Temple Period," in Yigael Yadin, ed., Jerusalem Revealed [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976], 13)

Second, to argue that this is a portion of the temple and that Matthew 24:2 has not yet been perfectly fulfilled and therefore still remains to be fulfilled is to demand a too literal interpretation. If we go that route, then we will have to dismiss numerous biblical prophecies that are not fulfilled in a pedantic manner and many biblical statements that are too generalistic.

For instance, in Acts 21:10–11 Luke writes: “And as we were staying there for some days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says: “In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.”’” Yet this prophecy did not come to pass in the exact manner presented.

We find this prophecy’s fulfillment in Acts 21:31, 33. But there it is not the Jews who physically bind him and deliver him to the Romans, but the Romans who seize him from the hands of the Jews who were attempting to kill him: “And while they were seeking to kill him, report came up to the commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion.... Then the commander came up and took hold of him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains.” Thus, it was not the Jews who literally “bind” Paul and then physically “deliver” Paul into the hands of the Gentiles. In fact, they were trying to kill him (Acts 21:31). He was rescued from the Jews, not delivered by them (Acts 21:32–25). Yet the fundamental, important point of Agabus prophecy is established: Paul went to Jerusalem and because of the Jews he ended up in jail by the Romans.

Another example appears in Malachi 4:5: “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.” Despite this rather clear prophecy of “Elijah’s” return, Jesus clearly and dogmatically informs us of the non-Elijah fulfillment of the prophecy: “I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him.... Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist” (Matt. 17:11, 12). Yet the prophecy was fulfilled by someone coming in the spirit and power of Elijah.

Again were this pedantic hermeneutic employed, Peter could be faulted for an erroneous historical statement in Acts 1:18. There he stated that Judas purchased a field with the silver he received for betraying Christ. But Matthew 27:1–7 shows us that Judas was dead when the field was purchased by others. Yet the fundamental, relevant idea remains: the field was purchased with Judas’ payment for betraying Jesus.

Also what would we do with the several references that say the Jews crucified Christ? This is very much parallel to the situation presently before us. For instance, in Acts 3:13–14 we read:
“You disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.” In Acts 5:30 Peter declares: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.”

These verses declare that the Jews “put to death” Jesus, even by “hanging Him on a cross.” Yet we know as a matter of historical record that the Romans were the ones who actually crucified Christ. John 19:13-16 is clear that Pilate “delivered Him up” to be crucified, for the Jews were not allowed the right to capital punishment (John 18:29–32). But the fundamental truth remains: the Jews cause Christ’s crucifixion.

Third, to argue that this is some portion of the temple and that Matthew 24:2 has not yet been perfectly fulfilled and therefore still awaits fulfillment causes Christ himself to be a false prophet.

After all, the text states that the disciples pointed out the temple buildings to him, the very buildings from which he had just come (Matt 24:1). Then he says “to them” (those disciples who had just pointed to those temple buildings): “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt 24:2). They asked him “when will these things be” (Matt 24:3)? He informs them that a number of things must occur first (Matt 24:6, 8), but that finally: “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34). Was Christ mistaken?

Fourth, in the final analysis, if some hapless dispensationalism stumbles into your conversation on the Olivet Discourse and mutters this complaint (that some stones of the temple still remain, therefore the prophecy has not been fulfilled), direct him to go to any number of dispensationalist works that state that Matthew 24:2 was fulfilled in AD 70.

For instance, in Tim LaHaye’s Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy we read: “Clearly the [disciples] first question related to the destruction of the Temple, which happened during the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” and “the disciples’ first question in the Olivet Discourse relates to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” (p. 249). The Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible states the same thing (p. 1151). Many other published works also admit this.

Then, if he will still not listen to you: Go to his house and take it apart stone-by-stone. If he complains, you can respond: “But there are a couple of stones still connected, so nothing of the sort of thing you complain about really happened.”

What Is Your Favorite Gap?

2010-07-13T10:28:00.005-04:00

One thing that I appreciate about dispensationalists is that they refreshingly admit when they are having trouble making their system work. Rather than bore their readers with exacting exegesis, dispensationalists admit that their system has gaps in it and just throw it out there for their audience. In fact, one of the more distinctive aspects of dispensationalism is its admission that it is full of holes: When the system cannot explain an important eschatological text, they declare: “There is a gap here! There must be!”

Daniel’s Famous Gap
Perhaps dispensationalism’s most famous — and most important — gap is the one they impose upon Daniel’s prophecies of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24–27. This prophecy is deemed by dispensationalists such as John F. Walvoord to be a linchpin in the dispensational system. In this prophecy Daniel uses the image of Seventy Weeks to represent a period of 490 years, with each “week” representing seven years.

Daniel breaks those 490 years into three sections: The first period is seven weeks (Dan 9:25; i.e., forty-nine years), then follows the second period of sixty-two weeks (Dan 9:25; you will have to compute the actual number of years by multiplying 7 x 62. I am no mathematician; I don’t do such high-level mathematical computation). Then finally the last week (Dan 9:27; I can handle this since there is none of this “carrying” business: it represents seven years).

But a problem arises for dispensationalists: Their best book sales deal with the great tribulation by which they frighten people to buy their novels so that they can become millionaires in order to invest their retirement into long-term real estate ventures. Consequently, they cannot allow that the last “week” follows immediately upon the preceding sixty-nine weeks — despite it appearing to do so when reading Daniel’s prophecy.

If they allowed this consecutive computation of the weeks-of-years, it would mean that the tribulation occurred in the first century when the Jewish temple was forever destroyed in A.D. 70 — just as Christ prophesied it would be. For the dispensationalist this would not make sense: Why is that such an important event? Big deal! So Israel worshiped by sacrifices for 1500 years from the time of Moses and the tabernacle. Big deal! So Israel worshiped in a temple for a 1000 years since the time of Solomon (except for a brief interruption during the Babylonian captivity). Big deal! Why would the final cessation of the sacrificial system, the rendering null and void the entire levitical system, and the absolute destruction of their central, unifying temple mean anything of significance to redemptive-history?

How then do they escape the obvious consecutive flow of weeks? By their own version of deus ex machina. They impose a gap between the sixty-ninth week and the seventieth. A gap arises on the scene to save the day. That is, the sixty-ninth week reaches until Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but then the next week leaps into the distant future over 2000 years distant! Consequently, they impose a gap in the record. Though the whole period of prophetic interest is 490 years, dispensationalists say that this measuring device must have a gap of over 2000 years before the last seven years starts. Voila! Prophecy doesn’t fit? No problem! Look for the gap.

The Old Testament’s Many Gaps
We also find the system’s tendency to impose gaps in various Old Testament prophecies that speak of the coming of Christ’s kingdom. Many prophecies read as if Christ comes to earth in the incarnation to establish his kingdom. For instance, consider Isaiah 9:6–7:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.

This (and many similar verses) appears to teach that Christ is born into history in the first century and that he establishes his kingdom then. But this will not do for dispensationalists. You can’t sell books by telling people that Christ established a spiritual-redemptive kingdom in the first century. Readers of the National Inquirer and others need something a little more exciting than that.

Thus, once again the necessity of a gap. Those prophecies that speak of Christ’s coming to establish his kingdom are not to be read consecutively. According to dispensationalists we must read these prophecies as teaching that Christ comes in the first century, then he returns to heaven for 2000 years or so, then he returns once again to establish his kingdom.

Looking at these Old Testament prophecies, they say, is like looking at mountain ranges: the farther mountain ranges in one’s view appear to be right behind the closer ones. But we know there is a great distance separating them. Likewise, must we read all those Old Testament prophecies that speak of Christ coming and establishing his kingdom

Matthew’s Gap
In Matthew 23–24 Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (Matt 23:37), declares her temple desolate (Matt 23:38), then leaves the temple only to have the disciples come and remind him of its magnificence (Matt 24:1). To this Jesus responds: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt 24:2). In surprise the disciples ask him: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt 24:3).

Then beginning in Matthew 24:4 the Lord launches into his great eschatological discourse, known as the Olivet Discourse: “And Jesus answered and said unto them. . .”

You would think Matthew might record Jesus’s answer to their surprised question about the destruction of the temple that sparks the discourse. But in the dispensational view he does not. All classic dispensationalists say that Matthew’s record of Jesus’ response does not record the answer to their specific question — which involves issues that would dramatically affect them. Rather, Matthew only records the part of Jesus’ answer that refers to events 2000 or more years into the future. Hence, another infamous dispensationalist gap.

This time, though, it is not necessarily a gap in prophetic time, but a gap in the revelational record of Matthew. Jesus’ reply to his disciples’ questions — as recorded by Matthew (and Mark!) — totally skips over any answer to it and begins deliberating upon events that will not occur for thousands of years. But you must admit: this makes the dispensational system work admirably!

Conclusion
Dispensationalism is an unworkable system that is literally full of holes (i.e., gaps). To make their system function dispensationalists must lay the Scriptures on a Procrustean bed. Much like Damastes (called Procrustes) of old, dispensationalists must either stretch or chop up things to make them fit their predetermined system. A Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced; dispensationalism is a Procrustean bed, an arbitrary standard.

But now, my readers, what are some of your favorite dispensational gaps? Everyone knows Daniel 9; most are familiar with the mountain-valley theory of prophetic interpretation; some even know of Matthew’s gap. Dispensationalism, though, does not just apply to Daniel, or to Matthew, or even to the Old Testament in general. Dispensationalism’s gap theory applies throughout the biblical record. You must have a favorite make-it-work gap. Please let me know by replying to this blog

Perhaps we could start a collection of gaps and publish a multi-million selling book? I will split the profits with you — 2000 years after I receive them.

Zechariah 14 and Prophetic Symbolism

2010-06-29T07:29:00.009-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Brian Simmons, one respondent to my previous blog "Marvelous Mountains," has made the following observations:

If you admit location in Zech. 14, you should take the passage literally. For instance, if the city of Jerusalem is the literal city, then the mount of Olives EASTWARD of the city must be literal as well. Direction demands location. Otherwise, you are using an inconsistent two-tiered hermeneutic. There is simply no objective exegetical basis for taking the city literally, and the mountain spiritually.

Also, just because God said He was the fountain of living waters does not necessarily allow one to import that concept into Zech. 14. Christ also said "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11: 25), yet orthodox Christians do not spiritualize passages that speak of the physical resurrection of the body. This very kind of reasoning is what leads to Hyper-Preterism and Hymeneanism.

I thank him for his insightful observations. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we must take Zech 14 literalistically. Please note the following:

1. The mention of a "location" (i.e., Jerusalem) does not necessarily require that we "should take the passage literally." If that were true, then no historical location could ever be used as a symbolic image. But we know very clearly that such often occurs in Scripture. Powerful symbolism is often crafted from known earthly phenomenon. For instance, in Gal 4:25–26 and Heb 12:22 "Jerusalem" is applied to heavenly realities.

2. In light of my observations in point 1, then, it does not follow that "direction demands location." If the historical places of Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives can symbolize other truths, then "direction" may be added to the imagery to fill out the symbolism.

3. Zech 14:4 states that "in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives." God's feet standing or treading on the earth is a common prophetic symbol that does not demand literality. When Amos states that God "treads on the high places of the earth" (Amos 4:13), he does not mean that God literally walks on all the mountains. When Micah declares that "the Lord is coming forth from His place" and that "He will come down and tread on the high places of the earth" causing the mountains to melt and the valleys to split (Mic 1:3–4) this does not require us to suppose that God will literally come down out of heaven and walk on the high places causing the mountains to melt. This is dramatic, apocalyptic, theophanic imagery of God's great power and intervention in worldly affairs.

4. Regarding the "fountain of living waters," I would note that the spiritual understanding of these waters is not imposed on the text without warrant. In fact, we see in the preceding, closely-linked vision that "a fountain will be opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity" (Zech 13:1). Unless we interpret this literally — arguing for waters that literally cleanse from sin — then we must recognize that the waters in Zech 14 may also indicate a spiritual reality.

5. Brian also states that "Christ also said 'I am the resurrection and the life' (John 11: 25), yet orthodox Christians do not spiritualize passages that speak of the physical resurrection of the body." He is certainly correct in this observation. However, this very statement exposes the inadequacy in his argument. Note that he states that "orthodox Christians do not spiritualize passages that speak of the physical resurrection." But here he admits that some passages speaking of resurrection do not refer to the "physical resurrection." This opens the whole question: Which passages speaking of resurrection must we understand literally and which spiritually? The same is true of passages speaking of "Jerusalem" and "direction."

6. Regarding the concern over "Hyper-Preterism": we must not allow heretical extremes to scare us away from a text simply because of certain similarities of argument. For instance, I am a Calvinist despite the fact that some have abused the Calvinist system by promoting Hyper-Calvinism (i.e., since God sovereignly saves men we do not need to evangelize or send out missionaries). We must properly distinguish between use and abuse. When we read through Zechariah's several prophecies we discover abundant use of symbolism for dramatic effect.

7. In closing, I would note that one of the best of Reformed exegetes is John Calvin. Though he is certainly note infallible, I do not believe he is guilty of arbitrary exegesis when he denies the literality of Zech 14:4. In his commentary on Zechariah (John Owen translation) Calvin writes:

"Stand, he says, shall his feet on the mount of Olives. He does not here promise a miracle, such as even the ignorant might conceive to be literal; nor does he do this in what follows, when he says, The mount shall be rent, and half of it shall turn to the eat and half to the west."

Calvin goes on to state that Zechariah is "employing a highly figurative language" by which he "accommodates himself, as I have said, to the capacity of our flesh."

Prophetic Fulfillment Today

2010-06-14T14:16:00.004-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Introduction
Dispensationalists argue that the “prophetic time clock” has been on hold since Israel rejected Christ’s offer of an earthly, political kingdom in the first century — despite his initially rejecting the Jews’ demand for just such a kingdom (John 6:15), his denying any interest whatsoever in a political kingdom (John 18:33–36), and some of his disciples’ dejection in his not establishing one (Luke 24:21). Because of this dispensationalists state that the entire Church Age is a parenthesis inserted in this holding pattern while the “prophetic clock” remains tick-less. (They have not even considered the possibility that God’s prophetic clock might be digital, altogether lacking ticking sounds.)

This clock problem is convenient in that it makes Daniel prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 work out very nicely: The first seven weeks (or forty-nine years) transpires according to prophetic pronouncement. Then immediately following are the sixty-two weeks (or 434 years) that continue on in history. Then God inserts a 2000 year gap so that the seventieth week can follow thereupon “immediately” (not counting the 2000 year parenthesis). Viola! Dispensationalism is proven by strict, literal, chronological prophecy!

The Walvoordian Chronology
I am currently researching some arguments for dispensationalism and I would welcome your assistance in helping me find some of their key Bible passages. I am having my devotional readings each morning in John F. Walvoord’s Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (in the original English). But I have become somewhat perplexed — almost to the point of being miffed. Somehow Walvoord left out the supporting biblical proof-texts for his argument. Let me explain.

I have come now to Walvoord’s chapter 9: “Prophecy in the Gospels.” On pages 400–01 in that chapter he presents a clear, helpful, and compelling Table titled: “Predicted Events Relating to the Nations.” I read through the twenty-three points of the Table and am impressed with how meticulously detailed biblical prophecy is. Such point-for-point fulfillment cannot be by chance! But I am crestfallen that he did not provide the essential proof-texts. I am hoping you might be able to supply me the missing proof-texts for each of his observations. Here is his table:

Predicted Events Relation to the Nations
1. United Nations organized as first step toward world government in 1946.

2. Israel is formed as a recognized nation in 1948.

3. Europe is rebuilt after World War II, setting stage for its role in future revival of the Roma Empire.

4. The rise of Russia as a world military and political power.

5. World movements such as the Common Market and the World Bank set the stage for future political and financial events.

6. Red China becomes a military power.

7. The Middle East and the nation of Israel become the focus of worldwide tension.

8. The Arab oil embargo in 1973 results in world recognition of the power of wealth and energy in the Middle East.

9. Lack of a powerful political leaders prevents the Middle East from organizing as a political power.

10. The Rapture of the church removes a major deterrent to expansion of political and financial power of the Mediterranean world.

11. The rise of a new leader in the Middle East who later is identified as the Antichrist who secures power over first three, and then all ten nations, uniting
them in a Mediterranean confederation.

12. The new Mediterranean leader imposes a peace settlement for seven years on Israel.

13. Russian army accompanied by several other nations invades Israel and is destroyed by judgments from God.

14. Peace settlement in the Middle East is broken after three-and-a-half years.

15. Middle East ruler as the antichrist becomes a world dictator.

16. Middle East ruler claims to be God and demands that all worship him at the pain of death.

17. Middle East dictator defiles the temple in Jerusalem.

18. The beginning of the terrible judgments of the Great Tribulation described in the seals, trumpets, and bowls of the wrath of God in the Book of Revelation.

19. Worldwide discontent at the rule of the Middle East ruler resulting form many catastrophes causing rebellion and gathering of the world’s armies in the Middle East to fight it out with Armageddon.

20. Second coming of Christ occurs accompanied by the armies from heaven.

21. The armies of the world attempt to fight the armies from heaven but are totally destroyed.

22. Christ’s millennial reign is established, climaxing judgments on all the unsaved and the final disposition of Gentile political power.

23. Those saved from both Jews and Gentiles are placed in the New Jerusalem in the earth where they will spend eternity.

The marvelous detail of biblical prophecy is breathtakingly incredible! And Walvoord has performed an invaluable service in presenting these prophetic fulfillments that no one can argue with (I myself know I have despaired of trying). So then, I would especially appreciate any help our readership may offer in the following select three issues (the numbers refer to his own enumeration, as cited above).

1. I need the Bible verse that teaches that the “United Nations” would be organized in “1946.” I have found four or five that seem to say the “United Nations” would be organized in 1932, but I need verses demonstrating it would actually be established in 1946. And if you could find one that says it would be in downtown New York City, that would be helpful.

2. I am hoping to find five or six New Testament passages that show that Israel would be recognized as a nation in “1948.” Some verses I have read appear to point to Israel’s re-establishment in either 1425, or 1836, or 1971. I would like to be able to interpret those passages by comparing Scripture-with-Scripture using the passages that clearly state that this will occur in 1948.

8. This is a fascinating demonstration of the accuracy of biblical prophecy! Could someone give me the texts that prophesy an “Arab oil embargo” — particularly one that occurs in “1973”? Either Old or New Testament texts will suffice. I have three or four from the Apocrypha (though they clearly state that the “Arab oil embargo” would be during the Truman administration in 1950), one from an obscure pseudepigraphical work (though it presents the date as occurring on the fourth of October, 1989, in downtown Cleveland), and three, nay four, from the Jewish Tosefta (which correspond with “The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan”). But what I would really like is one from the Church’s own canonical revelation.

Conclusion and Final Plea
If I could just get a handle on these three major prophetic data, I could move forward with my devotional reading of Walvoord. Until then, I may just have to stick with reading my WWJD bracelet for edification.

Marvelous Mountains and Clueless Dispensationalism

2010-06-01T12:57:00.002-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Lay defenders of dispensationalism often point to Zechariah 14:4ff as an important component of their literalistic view of the eschatological future. Unfortunately though, this is one of the areas where dispensationalism runs aground with an embarrassing thud as they attempt their literalistic approach to prophecy. You might say that they stumble over the mountains as they try to walk through Scripture while wearing their literalistic glasses. Let’s see how this is so.

In Zechariah 14:4, 10 we read:

And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.... All the land will be changed into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; but Jerusalem will rise and remain on its site from Benjamin's Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king's wine presses.

According to dispensationalists this speaks of radical, literal topographical changes.

Samples from Dispensationalist Interpreters

As we expose the error of the dispensationalist analysis of Zechariah 14, let us consider the following statements from dispensationalist scholars:

F. Duane Lindsey, “Zechariah” in Bible Knowledge Commentary (1:1569) comments that this speaks of a “change in topography.”

John F. Walvoord, Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (333) argues regarding the splitting of the Mount of Olives and the living waters flowing out of Jerusalem that “this makes clear that the Second Coming is a future event as the Mount of Olives is still intact.” He notes that “other topological changes will take place which apparently will elevate Jerusalem so that waters flowing will go half to the eastern sea, or the sea of Galilee, and half to the western sea, or the Mediterranean (v. 8).” He continues: “Included in the topographical changes will be the elevation of Jerusalem (v. 10).”

The Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible (1101) points out that “the mountain shall split in half, creating a rift valley from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea (v. 8)” and “the topography of the land will be changed, and Jerusalem will be elevated to even greater prominence (v. 10).”

Kenneth L. Barker, “Zechariah,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary (7:692, 693) speaks of the “topographical . . . changes” that occur, so that “the land around Jerusalem is to be leveled while Jerusalem is to be elevated.”

Exposé of Dispensationalist Exegesis

That they are missing the point of this (and related prophecies) becomes evident on the following considerations.

First, the presence of “living water” (Zech 14:8) should be a clue that something non-literal is going on here. Surely this is not a prophecy about literal H20flowing out of Jerusalem. Even in the Old Testament “living water” represents God’s salvation.

In Jeremiah 2:13 the Lord denounces Israel: “For My people have committed two evils: / They have forsaken Me, / The fountain of living waters, / To hew for themselves cisterns, / Broken cisterns, / That can hold no water.” He says basically the same thing in Jeremiah 17:13. But God is clearly not a literal “fountain of living [i.e., flowing] waters.” Rather this obviously speaks of his being the source of the water of life, that is, of salvation.

Though it lacks the adjective “living,” Isaiah 55:1 also mentions waters in a salvific sense: “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; / And you who have no money come, buy and eat. / Come, buy wine and milk / Without money and without cost.” This obviously is an image of God’s offer of salvation. Such imagery also appears in Psalm 42:2 and 63:1.

In fact, in Isaiah 44:3 the prophecy provides a parallel that proves this point: “For I will pour out water on the thirsty land / And streams on the dry ground; / I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring, / And My blessing on your descendants.” The poured out water is actually God’s poured out Spirit.

Furthermore, Jesus takes up this “living water” imagery in the New Testament. In John 4:10 he promises the woman at the well that he would give her “living water.” She must have been a dispensationalist because her response is literalistic in orientation: “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?” (John 4:11). You know Jesus’ response: “Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:13-14). He is speaking of the “living water” of salvation.

Second, returning to Zechariah 14, the statement that “Jerusalem will rise and remain on its site” and “the land will be changed into a plain” cannot be literal (Zech 14:10). Any tectonic elevation of Jerusalem would destroy the city so that it would not “remain on its site.” Rather, this elevating of Jerusalem (with its temple) is an image of spiritual or moral or religious exaltation in world affairs.

For instance, consider Isaiah 2:2: “Now it will come about that / In the last days, / The mountain of the house of the Lord / Will be established as the chief of the mountains, / And will be raised above the hills; / And all the nations will stream to it” (cp. Mic 4:1). If this is taken literally we have a future temple in a Jerusalem that is elevated higher than Mt. Everest. This is incredible for Mt. Everest stands around 29,000 feet — or almost six miles high!

Mt. Everest (and all other similarly high mountains) is rather inhospitable as a place for a city with a temple. It is known for its high winds (they can even reach 177 mph on occasion, causing an annoyingly nippy wind chill effect), thin atmosphere (much lower concentrations of oxygen than at sea level, thus requiring most climbers to take oxygen tanks as they jog up its slope), snow falls accumulating to the depth of ten feet (ruining most basketball games because the goal is only ten feet high), and unbearably cold temperatures (ranging from -2 degrees to -76 degrees, making it difficult to haul in animals for the sacrifices — especially non-wooly animals like bulls and goats). Surely Jerusalem will not be changed to a place enduring such conditions! And how will the “living waters” flow under such circumstances (Zech 14:8)? Only Al Gore could possibly imagine a day in which we will witness a warm, welcoming environment on a summit as high as Everest.

To make matters worse, this eschatological setting will be the place for God’s “lavish banquet for all peoples”! In Isaiah 25:6 we read: “the Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; / A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, / And refined, aged wine” (Isa 25:6). And this is not just a one-time expedition that all peoples on earth must make (we will not even contemplate the potentially crowded conditions on the summit during this picnic). After all, Zechariah 14:16 reports that in the eschatological Jerusalem all people must celebrate the Feast of Booths each year: “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.”

Many other problems present themselves to the literalist. But these are sufficient to expose the reducito ad absurdum of such exegesis. Whatever the texts means, it cannot mean what dispensationalists naively think it means. (For a treatment of Zechariah 14, please see my He Shall Have Dominion, pp. 481–85.)

Why No Focus on Progressive Dispensationalism?

2010-05-11T11:51:00.007-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

A leading focus of our research labor here at NiceneCouncil.Com is to offer critiques of dispensationalism. Hence we have erected AgainstDispensationalism.com as an informative blogsite. We are Reformed in our theology; and within evangelical thought, Reformed theology is virtually the opposite of dispensationalism. Hence, our critiques are designed to expose the errors of dispensationalism and encourage those caught up in it to “rapture” out of it.

But dispensationalism is currently undergoing something of a “great tribulation.” That is, most of its major academic institutions (most notably Dallas Theological Seminary) are vigorously challenging the theology of older, more classic forms of dispensationalism. And they are training the minds (yes, these people actually have minds) of the next generation of ministers.

This is causing much woe and concern among the diehard name-the-Antichrist-predict-the-rapture-thump-the-table-and-yell-“literalism” dispensationalists. Indeed, old school dispensationalists have published books spreading the alarm about the new form of dispensationalism, known as “progressive dispensationalism.” They are warning of the coming of the Antidispensationalist (i.e., the progressive dispensationalist movement) that has arisen in these last days. They now bemoan: “they went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John Walvoord 2:19).

Some books that the standard dispensationalists have published that include warnings of this new breed are:

Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master, Issues in Dispensationalism
Roy B. Zuck, Vital Prophetic Issues: Examining Promises and Problems in Eschatology
Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, When the Trumpet Sounds: Today’s Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism
Herbert W. Bateman, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views
Ron J. Bigalke Jr., ed., Progressive Dispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement and Defense of Traditional Dispensationalism

Since there is a brain-drain out of classic dispensationalism, the more influential publications of old school dispensationalism bypass the brain and go straight to the heart. They are simple novels rather than theological treatises. The leading influence for dispensationalism in recent times has been the Left Behind series (even though the title itself suggests the proper response to the question: “What really should I have done with this book when I picked it up at the bookstore?”).

From time-to-time we get inquiries regarding why we do not focus on progressive dispensationalism. I thought it might be a good idea to offer our reasons why we are not responding to the newer form of dispensationalism. Perhaps someday we will turn our attention to the new variety, but for now our focus remains on the older view. But why? Consider the following reasons.

First, classic dispensationalism dominates the publishing market. When you survey the books on eschatology that sell well in Christian bookstores, you will discover that they are invariably of the older variety of dispensationalism. The average evangelical Christian has been so brainwashed with his rapture predictions, antiChrist-search, great tribulation hopes, and sensationalism orientation, that he will continue buying new books on predictions — even though these books are simply re-mixing the information from the previous book he bought last week.

Thus, in the publishing world classic dispensationalism is the real menace. It is still governing the minds of tens of millions of evangelicals. With its resistance to rigorous intellectual research it almost seems that the motto of classic dispensationalism is: “The mind is a terrible thing. And it must be stopped in our lifetime. Before it kills somebody.”

Second, classic dispensationalism dominates the airwaves. We live in a visual era. Consequently, televangelists have enormous influence with their television shows. You simply will not find a progressive dispensationalist establishing a televangelism ministry. There is absolutely nothing exciting about progressive dispensationalism. In fact, it requires Bible study that is too demanding and has not presented one innovative colorful chart. (They do have two black-and-white charts they have created, but they are not even of the fold-out variety.)

Furthermore, progressive dispensationalism is not very exciting: It has absolutely no clue who the next Antichrist candidate should be — despite our era having a President of Muslim background and who hides his birth documentation. It offers no solid evidence for the next date for the rapture — despite our era experiencing enormous earthquakes and tsunamis. You simply cannot sustain a multi-billion dollar television empire with such a tentative theology.

Thus, in the entertainment world classic dispensationalism is the real problem. It is the behemoth that controls the airwaves. And in our highly visual, short-attention-span era this insures an enormous following, and with it, a large influence.

Third, classic dispensationalism dominates the pews. Because of its enormous influence through publishing and broadcasting, classic dispensationalism owns the pulpits of our land. And he who owns the pulpit controls the pew. Those sitting in the pews are the ones buying the books and watching the televangelists. It is a vicious cycle. And the circle, it seems, will be unbroken.

If you took all the pew-sitting dispensationalists in America and lined them up end-to-end, it would be good thing. Because this would get them out of the bookstores and away from their televisions. (Of course, if you took all church attenders who fall asleep during the sermon and lined them up end-to-end, they would be more comfortable. But that is another story.)

Fourth, classic dispensationalism is an embarrassment to the integrity of the Christian faith. Progressive dispensationalism is much more tolerable than the classic variety. It has ceded ground to covenantalism and has given up on much of the naivete that permeates classic dispensational “thought” (I use the term loosely).

Classic dispensationalism functions as the Chicken Little of the evangelical world, continually predicting the end. Consider the titles of the following (from the 1980s–1990s):
Lindsey, Planet Earth -- 2000: Will Mankind Survive? (1994).
Sumrall, I Predict 2000 (1987).
Lewis, Prophecy 2000: Rushing to Armageddon (1990).
Terrell, The 90’s: Decade of the Apocalypse (1992).
Hunt, How Close Are We?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ (1993).
Graham, Storm Warning (1992).
Ryrie, The Final Countdown (1991).
Jeffries, Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny (1988).
McKeever, The Rapture Book: Victory in the End Times (1987).
McAlvanny, et al., Earth’s Final Days (1994).
Marrs, et al., Storming Toward Armageddon: Essays in Apocalypse (1992).
Liardon, Final Approach: The Opportunity and Adventure of End-Times Living (1993).
Webber and Hutchins, Is This the Last Century? (1979).

How many times can “prophecy experts” and “end times authorities” miss, but keep on selling books? Apparently the number is legion. These people still continue as the following recent titles prove:
Jeffrey, Countdown to the Apocalypse: Learn to Read the Signs, the Last Days Have Begun (2008).
Hitchcock, The Late Great United States: What Bible Prophecy Reveals About America's Last Days (2009).
Jenkins, Rapture: In the Twinkling of an Eye Countdown to Earth's Last Days (2006).
Hunt, Countdown to The Second Coming: A Concise Examination of Biblical Prophecies of The Last Days (2005).
Laurie, Are These the Last Days? How to Live Expectantly in a World of Uncertainty (2006).
Hatch, The End: A Futurist Looks at the Very Last Days (2006).

In the final analysis, classic dispensationalism is an embarrassment to Christianity. Because of its large presence it has an enormous negative impact on our culture’s perception of the Christian faith.

Fifth, progressive dispensationalism is still relatively rare. Though this approach is making its presence felt in academic circles, it has little influence beyond the ivory towers. It could well begin asserting itself if it continues teaching future preachers in its seminaries. But currently it has a minimal impact on our culture. Besides, since it is a work in progress and clearly has been impacted by covenantal theology, it may well be that it will drift away from premillennialism altogether. Time will tell.

For these and other reasons we will keep our focus on behemoth dispensationalism. It poses the larger threat to Christianity and our culture.

The Land and Jesus

2010-05-04T09:07:00.004-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

The question of “the Land” is of paramount importance for the dispensationalist. Dispensationalism is a whole systematic theology — not simply an eschatology — that has as one of its chief cornerstones the predominant role of Israel in God’s plan for history. If the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, the way to a dispensationalist’s heart is through the Land of Israel. Unfortunately, the whole New Testament contradicts it.

The Land question is also of enormous significance in the current wider world of politics and international relations. Many Christians consider themselves to be “Christian Zionists,” and strongly urge Western governments to support Israel — regardless.

In this blog I will provide a brief review of an excellent new book on the subject of the Israel and the Land: Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology (Baker Academic, 2010; 153 pp; soft cover). The author is Gary M. Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School

Dr. Burge is a competent New Testament scholar, holding a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen. He is a member, The Society for Biblical Literature; Institute for Biblical Understanding; and Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, Cambridge, England. He is also very knowledgeable regarding contemporary “Holy Land” issues. Besides this work he has authored Who Are God's People in the Middle East? (1993) and Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians (2003). He holds membership in Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding, as well as Holy Land Ecumenical Fellowship.

Though well qualified in the field, I confess that he does lack qualifications in three important areas: (1) He does not have a degree from Dallas Theological Seminary. (2) He is not a televangelist. (3) And as a consequence of #2 he does not appear to have bleached-white teeth. As a result of these three deficiencies he will not receive a wide reading among dispensationalists-in-the-pew.

The book is composed of eight succinct chapters and a helpful “Further reading” section. The chapters are: (1) The biblical heritage; (2) Diaspora Judaism and the land; (3) Jesus and the land; (4) The Fourth Gospel and the land; (5) The book of Acts and the land; (6) Paul and the promises to Abraham; (7) Developments beyond Paul; (8) Land, theology, and the Church.

As an insignificant aside: the book does have one layout oddity. When the Arabic numbering of pages begins (after the Roman numeral front-matter), page 1 is on the left hand page rather than the right (as are all following odd numbers). Someone in layout stumbled.

But now: why does the book have the title “Jesus and the Land” since only one chapter deals directly with Jesus’s ministry? Judging from the chapter titles you would think it might be better titled “The New Testament and the Land.” However, the title perfectly captures the point of the book. As Burge compellingly argues: Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant and all of its promises, including the Land. Let us see how this unfolds.

After important introductory material in chapters 1 (Abraham and the Old Testament backdrop) and 2 (non-Judean, diaspora Judaism), we come to Burge’s central chapter: “Jesus and the land” (ch. 3). Here he carefully surveys relevant highlights from Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. He points out that despite the longing and perspective of many (not all!) first-century Jews, Jesus downplays the Land — as well as two other “holy places” for Israel: Jerusalem and the Temple. In a later chapter Burge captures this point well: “the lens of the incarnation had now refocused things completely. Christian theology had no room for ‘holy places’ outside of the Holy One who is Christ” (p. 94).

In his preaching the Lord begins transferring Israel’s hope from a Land to a Person; that is, to himself as the Messiah who has now come in fulfillment of the old covenant types, promises, and prophecies. Burge then traces and develops this theme in John, Acts, and Paul, with a briefer analysis of Hebrews and Revelation. He argues that as Israel rejects Christ: “The city at the center of Judaism’s religious aspirations has now failed some test that will lead to its judgment” (p. 45). As a consequence of Jesus’ teaching and Israel’s failure John develops his “theological agenda” which is “his messianic replacement (or fulfillment) motif” (p. 46).

In chapter 5 (“The book of Acts and the Land”) Burge shows Luke’s intentional theological structure, which traces Christian’s message and movement. He notes that both begin gradually to discount the Land: He reminds us that Jesus himself only ministered within Israel (Matt 10:5; 15:24). And though the Church begins in Jerusalem (Acts 1-5), it quickly starts moving away from Jerusalem and out of the Land (Acts 6ff). The largest discourse is Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 (which is the last speech given in Jerusalem): it represents diaspora Judaism outside of Israel rather than Judaism in the Land. Then Acts moves quickly to the Gentile world (Acts 9ff), ultimately focusing on and emphasizing Paul’s ministry in bringing in Gentiles.

In Acts, Luke does not appear simply to be tracing Christianity’s historical chronological growth. Rather Luke’s structure is more interested in presenting Christianity’s redemptive-historical theology. That is, Christianity is developing away from a Land-based theology to a Christ-based theology, away from a Jewish focus to a Gentile-focus.

As a result of all of this theological-structuring of Christianity’s development, Burge shows that “early Christian preaching is utterly uninterested in a Jewish eschatology devoted to the restoration of the land” (p. 59; emph. his). And this is despite the fact that Paul usually begins his ministry in diaspora synagogues before reaching out to the Gentiles. Thus, Acts shows that “the Land of Promise was the source of Christianity’s legacy but no longer its goal” (p. 61). Thus, “the striking thing is that Paul here can refer to the promise of Abraham and not refer to the Land of Promise. . . . Paul is consistent with all the speeches in the book of Acts. Paul as well as Peter can consistently ignore the central elements in Abraham’s life according to Jewish teaching: land and progeny” (p. 68).

Though I wish he had developed the issue further, I was pleased to see that Burge at least holds to a semi-preterist understanding of Revelation, a view that is generally called the “idealist-preterist” approach. He even allows that Babylon “may also refer to Jerusalem, but also alludes to Rome itself” (p. 105). What is more, he states that “it may be that the harlot refers to Jerusalem or the high priest in his final corruption before the war” (p. 106) — which happens to be the view that I am developing in my commentary on Revelation. Thus, regarding the Land and the Book of Revelation, Burge properly notes: “In Revelation it is the Holy Land that becomes a land of violence toward the people of God and in the end is subject to judgment and devastation” (p. 108). This is right on target, and well put.

I highly recommend this book as a judicious and insightful study of the question of the Land of Israel in Scripture and theology. It deserves wide reading and discussion. Order it from NiceneCouncil.com today. In fact, I recommend ordering two copies so that you can read both to make sure he is consistent.

A Reply to Vince

2010-04-20T07:48:00.004-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

This letter is a response to Vince LaRue who commented on my previous blog: "A Tract for Dispensationalists." For the full text of his comment, see the preceding blog comments.

Vince:

Thanks for your note. Glad you enjoyed the humor. You might want to check some of my older tongue-in-cheek blogs, such as "Witnessing to Dispensationalists" and "Identifying Dispensationalists."

But I wish you recognized the theological significance of the critique. I certainly do not understand your complaint that I don't hold to the final authority of Scripture. I was dealing with Scripture (Ephesians) in the whole article. I was showing the several biblical errors in dispensationalism from this one epistle.

Contrary to your complaint: I believe I do understand dispensationalism. I am a former dispensationalist with a degree in Biblical Studies from a dispensational college (Tennessee Temple University) and studied for two years at a dispensational graduate school (Grace Theological Seminary). For seven years I wrote a monthly newsletter critiquing dispensationalism ("Dispensationalism in Transition"). For my dispensational pedigree you might want to see my September 24, 2009 blog "I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist."

In addition, I have two debate books with dispensationalists. One is The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, with Dr. Thomas Ice of Tim LaHaye's Pre-Trib Study Center. It is published by a dispensational publisher, Kregel. The other is Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, published by the nation's largest Christian publisher and edited by Darrell L. Bock, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. In 1992 I wrote a 600+ page book critiquing dispensationalism: House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology.

As the Director of NiceneCouncil.com, I was involved in writing the script for our bestselling DVD "The Late Great Planet Church." This is the first in a series of DVDs critiquing dispensationalism.

Since you don't mention any errors in my blog, I can't tell where my critique fails to "hold water" for you.

As for lacking "a cohesive alternative theology": you expect a lot from a blog! I recommend you read my 600 page book He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology. Postmillennialism is my alternative theology. If you don't have time for that, please see my Postmillennialism Made Easy.

And to show a broader cohesion in my theology you might want to check out some of my other books. I have written books on topics as diverse as a defense of six day creation (Yea, Hath God Said?), charismatic theology (The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy), the law of God (Covenantal Theonomy; God's Law Made Easy), the book of Revelation (Before Jerusalem Fell; The Beast of Revelation; Four Views on the Book of Revelation; Revelation Made Easy; Perilous Times), the Christian worldview (The Greatness of the Great Commission), predestination (Predestination Made Easy), and apologetics (Pushing the Antithesis).

A problem I have with dispensationalists is their tendecy to emotionally write-off counter analyses. But this problem only arises when a dispensationalist even considers any contrary viewpoints.

I hope you might check out some of our materials at the NiceneCouncil.com on-line store. I believe you will find we have studied dispensationalism well. And are offering a "cohesive alternative."

A Tract For Dispensationalists

2010-04-12T17:49:00.013-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

In the preceding six articles I worked through Ephesians showing how it is virtually a theological tome against dispensational theology. In this blog I will summarize the preceding studies reducing them to a dispensationalist-sensitive, non-comical, politically-correct, user-friendly, handy-sized, non-fattening tract.

This tract will be suitable for using as you witness to dispensationalist family members, friends, companions, partners, neighbors, acquaintances, associates, comrades, cohorts, helpers, co-workers, colleagues, pastors, Sunday school teachers, elders, deacons, evangelists, missionaries, strangers, drifters, aluminum storm door salesmen . . . whoever. If you find it suitable (if not for hanging, at least for distributing), I hope you will cut-and-paste the material below into a small handout for your victims. They will thank you for it. But I will not — because there is no way I will even know you did so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Cut Here - - - - - Paste Wherever - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DISPENSATIONALISM AND EPHESIANS

Dispensationalism is a theological system held by untold millions of Bible-believing Christians in thousands of churches across our land. Some of the great evangelists of our day and of the recent past have faithfully preached dispensational truths to who will hear. As a theological system it is user-friendly, presenting a plain-and-simple, literal system of interpretation. None of this complex theologizing: just the literal truth of Scripture!

The Glory of Dispensationalism

One of the distinctive advantages of dispensationalism is that it “rightly divides the word of truth.” That is, it properly sorts out those things in Scripture that belong to Israel and those which belong to the Church. It recognizes that the current Church Age was unknown to the Old Testament prophets and is a temporary aside in the major plan of God as his prophetic time-clock was put on hold in the first century when Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah. In this age we are awaiting the Rapture and the consequent conversion of Israel during the Great Tribulation.

Dispensationalism greatly extols Israel as “the apple of God’s eye.” It recognizes the future glory awaiting them when Christ returns to the earth to re-build their temple and to establish his millennial kingdom headquartered in their holy city, Jerusalem. This system of biblical truth promises that we will rule and reign with Christ as the glorious Old Testament prophecies finally come to perfect fulfillment.

Many of us have grown up in homes where the Scofield Reference Bible was held in high esteem. We have attended churches and Sunday schools where we learned that we are living in the last times just preceding the Rapture of the Church. Our parents and pastors have encouraged us to live expectantly, awaiting the time when God will again turn his attention to Israel. What could be more exciting?

Is this your experience as a Christian? Do these doctrinal commitments sound like your own? Have you experienced this excitement of living in the end times? You are not alone. For tens of millions of Christians this outlook on Scripture and the world is the very foundation of their spiritual lives and religious commitments.

Dispensationalism is widely believed and promoted. But is it biblical? That is the question that we must consider if we are truly Bible-believing Christians.

The Challenge of Ephesians

Let us take a brief walk through Ephesians, one of Paul’s most beloved epistles. Let us see if Paul’s outlook is compatible with dispensationalism. Unfortunately, as we will see, Ephesians directly contradicts many of the very foundations to the system that so many hold dear.

We will work our way through Paul’s letter in the order he presents it, rather than in any sort of theological order. As we read along, you may become surprised at how clearly Ephesians conflicts with this beloved system.

(1) Christ is presently ruling in his kingdom

Dispensationalism teaches that Christ is not presently enthroned as king. His enthronement awaits the future establishment of his kingdom during the millennium. But in Ephesians 1 Paul teaches that Christ was already established as the king and enthroned in the first century. His statement shows that Christ is not now awaiting his future kingly reign.

In Ephesians 1:20–23 Paul declares:

“He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.”

Note the following complicating problems that arise from this statement.

First, we see quite clearly that Jesus in fact has already been seated at God’s right hand in heaven. This being “seated” (note the past tense) at “God’s right hand” obviously speaks of his being seated at God’s throne in heaven. After all, Jesus himself declares elsewhere that he “sat down with My Father on his throne” (cp. Mark 16:19; Acts 7:56; Heb 8:1; 1 Pet 3:22).

In fact, when he was being tried by the rulers of Israel they asked him if he was the Christ. He chastised them for not believing him in this regard (Luke 22:66–78). He then warned them that he was soon to be seated with God in heaven: “But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69). No postponement theory here: in the very context of Israel’s formal, official, and final rejection of him he declared that he would be “seated at the right hand of the power of God” despite their rejection.

Second, we further learn that his throne is in heaven and not on the earth. This contradicts a fundamental of dispensationalism’s premillennial scheme. The Messianic throne is not a literal throne on earth, it is a spiritual reality in heaven. Thus, his reign does not involve political and bureaucratic rule. Rather it is a spiritual-redemptive reality. The earthly kingship of Christ is absolutely denied by Paul.

Third, this enthronement in Ephesians gives Christ authority “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” Indeed, God “put all things in subjection under His feet.” This is as high an authority as is possible. What would be the point of his coming to the earth to rule in a literal millennium? He is the ruler of all things now. Why would he come to rule in Jerusalem in a millennium? Why would he leave his heavenly throne where he rules universally to return to his earthly footstool to rule locally (Isa 66:1; Matt 5:35; Acts 7:49)?

Fourth, in fact, Paul says that Christ’s rule continues “not only in this age [right now!], but also in the one to come.” If dispensationalists claim that Christ is not now ruling, then what is Paul talking about? Paul sees Christ’s current function at the right hand of God as not only present now, but as continuing into the future age which lies beyond the present age. Put in the best possible light for dispensationalism, they should argue that his kingship takes a new form in the millennium. But their peculiar system construct will not allow this. In their view, Christ’s kingdom was presented, rejected, and postponed. He is not now in any way reigning as king.

Fifth, this kingly rule of Christ is related “to the church.” And this church is “His body.” But the church is the very redemptive-historical institution that dispensationalism distinguishes from Israel — and therefore from the millennial kingdom. In fact, in their dispensational structuring of history (“rightly dividing the word of truth”), the present age is the Church Age, which is to be followed by (and distinguished) from the Kingdom Age (the millennium).

(2) We are presently ruling with Christ

Dispensationalism teaches that Christ’s future literal rule from a literal throne will include our reigning with him But since his kingdom is not now present, then obviously we are not now reigning with Christ. But Ephesians contradicts such an interpretation.

In Ephesians 2:4–6 we read:

“God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:4–6).

And where had Paul just stated that Christ was seated? According to Ephesians 1:20–21 God “raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” He is at God’s right hand ruling over all.

According to the plain-and-simple method of literal interpretation our enthronement must wait until after the second coming of Christ at the Rapture. Why does Paul here speak in the past tense by using the aorist verbal forms of “raised” and “seated?” Why does he teach that Christians in the first century are already enthroned with Christ, that is, that they are already ruling and reigning with him in his kingdom?

And Paul is not alone in this: Peter calls first-century Christians a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:9), i.e., a kingdom of priests. And even John, does the same — long before he speaks of the millennium (which occurs in only one chapter in all of the Bible, which happens also to be its most difficult book) and our reigning with Christ as kings and priest (Rev 20:6). John states in the past tense: “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father” (Rev 1:6).

To seal the matter, Paul even mentions the celebration of Christ’s enthronement in Ephesians 4. He speaks of his enthronement in terms reflecting a formal Roman triumph where the conquering ruler returns to his capital and divides the spoil with his jubilant citizens. In Ephesians 4:8 Paul states regarding the heavenly-enthroned Christ: “When He ascended on high, / He led captive a host of captives, / And He gave gifts to men.”

(3) The Jew and Gentile are forever merged into one body in the final phase of God’s redemptive plan.

The leading classic dispensationalist scholar of the last fifty years is Charles C. Ryrie. On p. 39 in his important 1995 work Dispensationalism he reiterates his 1966 observation from the book’s first edition: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” According to Ryrie: “A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.” He then states rather dogmatically: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

We must note two aspects of the matter that come undermine the system. In dispensationalism’s two-peoples-of-God theology they must hold that God (1) distinguishes Jew and Gentile and (2) that he does so permanently (at least in history, though many carry the distinction into eternity). How are these observations fatal to the system? And in light of our study in Ephesians, how do we see that problem in Paul’s epistle?

Paul notes very clearly and forcefully that God merges Jew and Gentile into one body, which we now call the church. He even encourages the Gentiles with the knowledge that they are now included among God’s people and are partakers of their blessings. They are not separate and distinct from Israel but are adopted into her. Note Ephesians 2:11–19:

“Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands — remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household.”

Note very carefully what Paul states and how it contradicts the notion of a distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the church:

1. Paul states that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12). This is an observation about their past condition.

2. He argues that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . strangers to the covenants of promise” (plural covenants / singular promise). This is an observation about their past condition.
3. He reiterates the Gentiles’ former condition that has now been changed: “But now in Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.

4. He resolutely declares that Christ has effected “peace” in that he “made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (Eph 2:14). This is their new experience and condition.

5. He restates this once again by noting that Christ made “the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15). This is their new experience and condition.

6. He recasts this very thought noting that Christ determined to “reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” This is their new experience and condition.

7. He continues by insisting that Christ “came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were far away” (Eph 2:17). This is their new experience and condition.

8. He states still again that “through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18). This is their new experience and condition.

9. He declares this fact once again: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.

10. He insists: “but you are fellow citizens with the saints [obviously the Jews], and are of God’s [singular] household” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.

11. Paul states once again that the Gentiles are a part of “the [singular] whole building, being fitted together” and “are being built together” (Eph 2:21). This is their new experience and condition.

Dispensationalism distinguishes Jew and Gentile permanently. Paul merges the two into one new body permanently.

(4) Paul sees Gentiles as receiving Jewish promises.

In our last comment we noted that Paul saw Jew and Gentile merged — permanently — in one body, the church (Eph 2:11–19). Now we would note that in the early part of that text he teaches that this new, merged body — the church — receives the Old Testament promises given to Israel. Consider Paul’s statement to these Gentile Christians:

“remember that you were at that time [before your conversion] separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12).

What is happening here? Paul is speaking of matters involving “the commonwealth of Israel.” He is declaring that before these Gentiles came to Christ they were “strangers to the covenants of promise.” This necessarily means that now that they have come to Christ they are no longer strangers to the covenants of promise.

Thus, they are now recipients of “the covenants of promise,” which include the distinctive Abrahamic Covenant with Israel (Gal 3:16–18). After all, he goes on to say that though they were “a that time” (Eph 2:12) excluded and strangers they now “have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13) and that Christ “broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” that separated Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14).

Thus, if Gentiles are no longer “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,” if Gentiles are no longer “strangers to the covenants of promise,” if Gentiles “have been brought near,” if Jew and Gentile are merged into one body , and if that which distinguishes Jew and Gentile has been “broken down” (the “dividing wall”), then by parity of reasoning: the Gentiles receive the promises given to Israel. How can it be otherwise? The two are now one, so that the promises to the old covenant people belong to the new covenant people who have been merged with them.

(5) The rebuilt temple is the Church of Jesus Christ.

The future rebuilt temple is a distinctive feature of dispensationalism. The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel, 1996; hereinafter, DPT) states that:

“The prophecy of a future Jewish temple in Jerusalem . . . is part of the greater restoration promise made to national Israel. This promise, made at the close of the first temple period (cf. Isa. 1:24–2:4; 4:2–6; 11:1–12:6; 25–27; 32; 34–35; 40–66; Jer. 30–33; Ezek. 36–48; Amos 9:11–15; Joel 2:28–3:21; Micah 4:–5; 7:11–20; Zeph. 3:9–20), made again by the prophets who prophesied after the return from captivity (cf. “Dan. 9–12; Hag. 2:5–9; Zech. 8–14; Mal. 3–4), and reaffirmed in the New Testament (cf. Acts 3:19–26; Rom. 11:1–32) contained inseparably linked elements of fulfillment. . .” (DPT 404).

Paul is provides a spiritual interpretation of the promise of a rebuilt temple. In Ephesians 2:19–22 he states:

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

The Apostle certainly believes in a rebuilt temple, but not one built of stone. He sees “the whole building”as currently in his day already “being fitted together” and “growing into a holy temple in the Lord.”He allows this despite the fact that the earthly temple is still standing as he writes. And despite the fact that the millennium still lies off in the distance (already almost 2000 years distant, at least).

To make matters worse, Paul sees the rebuilt temple in spiritual terms because it is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” with “Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.” And the current and ongoing building process involves Christians themselves as the building stones for “you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

This is why Jesus could inform the Samaritan woman: “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. . . But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (John 4:21, 23). And Jesus presents this “coming” hour as a permanent, final reality not to be withdrawn as a new order of localized, physical temple worship is re-instituted.

This is no stray statement by Paul: he returns to this theme time-and-again. We read of his conception of the spiritual temple in the following verses:

“Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” (1 Cor 3:16–17)

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor 6:19)

“What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I will Dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people’” (2 Cor 6:16).

The third sample in 2 Corinthians 6:16 is important because it specially applies Old Testament prophecy to the New Testament spiritual temple. Notice how Paul argues: “We are the temple of the living; just as God said, ‘I will Dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’” The Old Testament backdrop to this “just as God said” statement is Ezekiel 37:27: “My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”

What is remarkable about all of this is that this Paul takes this statement from Ezekiel’s prophecy of Israel’s dry bones coming back to life. Thus, Paul commits two hermeneutic sins: (1) he applies a prophecy regarding Israel to the church and (2) he spiritualizes God’s prophetic dwelling, applying it to God’s spiritual indwelling his people, rather than God’s building a new temple.

(6) The mystery of the Church was revealed in the Old Testament

The Prophecy Study Bible (2001; hereinafter PSB) defines the mystery character of the Church:
“A mystery or hidden secret in the biblical sense was something in the mind and plan of God but unknown to mankind until it was revealed in the New Testament. Here the mystery is not merely that Gentiles would be blessed . . , which was predicted and well known. The mystery, not known in Old Testament times, was that believing Jews and believing Gentiles would be united as fellow heirs within the same body, to be sharers of God’s promise in Christ through the gospel” (PSB 1388).

Indeed, PSB (1338) explains that “the word ‘mystery’ is often used to describe a New Testament truth not revealed in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:3–5, 9; Col. 1:26–27).” The “prophecy of Christ’s Church is carefully defined by the apostle Paul as a ‘mystery, which from the beginning of the of the ages [i.e., eternity past] has been hidden in God’ (Eph. 3:9). . . . The Church itself was a mystery hidden in God until the revelation in the New Testament” (PSB 1286).

However, once again, Paul contradicts this dispensational view, as we see when we look closely at one of the very verses used to support the system. Ephesians 3:1–10 reads as follows:

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles — if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.”

Paul certainly states that “by revelation there was made known to me the mystery.” We are clearly dealing with a biblical mystery, and one that was especially revealed to Paul. But notice what he actually says:

1. Paul states that “in other generations [it] was not made known to the sons of men” (Eph 3:5a). By “sons of men” Paul is referring broadly of all men, especially those outside of Israel, the Gentiles. He uses the phrase that often appears in the Old Testament to refer to men generically, the wider human race.

David uses this phrase in Psalm 14:2 in speaking of the fool who says there is no God and who works wickedness in order to “eat up my people” (Psa 14:4). We see this generic usage also in Psalm 21:10; 31:19; etc. Indeed, the psalmist declares that “the Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men” (Psa 33:19; cp. 53:2; Jer 32:19). Even when he uses the term inclusively as including Israel, it is because Israel is a part of the whole human race. Ecclesiastes frequently employs the phrase generically (Eccl 1:13; 2:3; 3:10, 18–19; 8:11; 9:3, 12). Daniel 2:38 agrees.

Thus, Paul is teaching that the human race outside of Israel as such did not know the blessings God had in store for them. Paul has been commissioned to take this news to them: “of which I was made a minister’ according to the gift of God’s grace” (Eph 3:7). We must remember that he was appointed as the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5; 11:13; Gal 2:8; Eph 3:5–6; 1 Tim 2:7).

2. Paul continues by adding: “as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Eph 3:5b). The word “as” is a comparative. That is, this revelation was not revealed during the Old Testament era to the degree that it is now revealed in the New Testament. He is comparing the revelation of the mystery in the Old Testament to its fuller revelation in the New Testament. Thus, the earlier revelation was not to the same degree as that which “has now been revealed to his Holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.” We must not overlook the comparative.
3. In fact, we know he is speaking comparatively, not only because of he uses the word “as,” but because of what he states at the end of Romans. In Romans 16:25–27 we read:

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.”

Note that in this passage he clearly declares that this mystery “now is manifested,” but then immediately adds: “and by the Scriptures of the prophets.” Here he speaks of the Old Testament Scripture for he opens Romans by a similar expression. At Romans 1:2 he speaks of the promise “beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2), which definitely refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. Indeed, all through Romans he refers to the Old Testament as “the Scripture[s]” (Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4), just as he does elsewhere (1 Cor 15:3–4; Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim 5:18).

Thus, this “mystery” is a revelation of God that cannot be accessed by man’s unaided wisdom. But it appeared before in the Old Testament Scriptures, though it is now made more central and clear in the New Testament. In fact, Paul even adds in Romans 16:26b that this “has been made known to all the nations.” So then, this mystery is no longer confined to Israel in her covenantal Scriptures, but is now being proclaimed to all the nations.

Conclusion

My dispensationalist friend: Though your system is touted as plain and simple, the fact is that it actually contradicts Scripture. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians shows that several of its very foundation stones are mistaken. Dispensationalism is an erroneous, non-biblical system. You really should re-think it.

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (Part 6)

2010-04-06T12:34:00.008-04:00

Part 6: The Hidden Church
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Introduction

As you may discern from my cleverly repeating the descriptor “Part 6” in both the title and sub-title of this blog, this is Part 6 of a series. I carefully numbered these for the benefit of you the reader. I never even contemplated inserting a mysterious gap in the series, thereby leaping from Part 5 to Part 7. Nor after the last installment will I again revert to an early number (as when dispensationalists re-institute old covenant-like features). For those of you who may have suspected that I am a closet dispensationalist this is strong evidence against such a notion: No dispensational enthusiast can resist imposing gaps in their theology. In fact, gaps are necessary in their exegesis of the biblical record to make their system look like it is working properly.

But of what is this Part 6? By parity of reasoning, one should surmise that Part 6 implies preceding parts that lead step-by-step to this one. Perhaps you are one of the people who have not been reading this blog (there are 6.7 billion of you). If so, read the next paragraph. If not, read it anyway: you do not want to impose a gap in your reading.

So then, of what is this a part? I have been presenting a series that provides a one-stop-shopping refutation of dispensationalism by focusing on Ephesians. Like the evangelistic tool known as “The Romans Road to Salvation” (which presents the gospel wholly from within Romans), I have been presenting “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism” which shows from this one letter of Paul several debilitating, crippling, incapacitating, enervating, disabling, and down-right fatal errors within dispensationalism. After carefully reading Ephesians you may adopt dispensationalism for fun and profit, to be sure. But you can never adopt it as a result of biblical exegesis: it is flatly mistaken and fundamentally confused. Dispensationalism is truly a non-prophet organization.

This will be our final presentation from Ephesians. Paul’s practice is generally to lay down doctrinal statements first, then apply those to the lives of his audience. Thus, in Ephesians he lays down his doctrine in chapters 1–3. Then at Ephesians 4:1 he begins by an important “therefore” statement to make practical application of those doctrines: “I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called.”

Dispensationalism’s Mysterious Position

As we saw in a previous blog, in dispensationalism the Church of Jesus Christ is a secondary, temporary plan of God, a Plan B. God’s first (Old Testament era), final (millennial era), and most important plan regards Israel, not the Church. What is more, not only is the Church secondary in dispensationalism, but it is deemed wholly unknown and unrevealed in the Old Testament. Dispensationalism does not stop at simply making errors: they make errors and then exaggerate them.

Interestingly, one of the key passages that dispensationalism uses to prove that the Church was not prophesied in the Old Testament is Ephesians 3:3–6. Let us see how this is so, then respond.

Dispensationalism’s color-coded and multi-charted presentation with its Jehovah’s Witness-like graphics study Bible is known as the Prophecy Study Bible (2001; hereinafter PSB). At Ephesians 3:3–6 it defines Paul’s mystery:

“A mystery or hidden secret in the biblical sense was something in the mind and plan of God but unknown to mankind until it was revealed in the New Testament. Here the mystery is not merely that Gentiles would be blessed . . , which was predicted and well known. The mystery, not known in Old Testament times, was that believing Jews and believing Gentiles would be united as fellow heirs within the same body, to be sharers of God’s promise in Christ through the gospel” (PSB 1388).

Indeed, PSB (1338) explains that “the word ‘mystery’ is often used to describe a New Testament truth not revealed in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:3–5, 9; Col. 1:26–27).” The “prophecy of Christ’s Church is carefully defined by the apostle Paul as a ‘mystery, which from the beginning of the of the ages [i.e., eternity past] has been hidden in God’ (Eph. 3:9). . . . The Church itself was a mystery hidden in God until the revelation in the New Testament” (PSB 1286). In fact, of this mystery in Ephesians 3:3–4, 9 the PSB (1402) explains: “Unknown to Israel before Christ, the revelation of this truth was given to Paul and is being fulfilled in the Church Age.”

And it is not just this populist, cartoonish “study” Bible that argues thus. In the Popular Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (2004:54) we read: “The New Testament teaches that the church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament (Romans 16:25–26; Ephesians 3:2–10; Colossians 1:25–27).”

Even the famed Charles Ryrie in his Dispensationalism (1995:124) agrees: “The Old Testament does predict Gentile blessing for the millennial period . . , but the specific blessings do not include equality with the Jews as is true today in the Body of Christ.”

Elsewhere Paul Benware in his Understanding End Times Prophecy (1995:86) writes:

“The church and Israel are not the same because the Body of Christ is said to be a ‘mystery’ by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 3:3–6 and Colossians 1:26. In the New Testament a ‘mystery’ is a truth that was not revealed previously in the Old Testament. . . . This mystery was known only to God until He chose to reveal it to the apostles.”

But does Ephesians present the Church as a mystery “unknown until it was revealed in the New Testament”? Was it “not known in Old Testament times”? Was it really “unknown to Israel before Christ”? Did the Old Testament revelation not “include equality with the Jews” in its prophecies? Was this truth “not revealed previously in the Old Testament”?

Dispensationalism’s Manifest Error

Paul will have nothing of this. His words in Ephesians 3 are being distorted so greatly that they are made to state the very opposite of what he intended. Let us see how this is so. Let us see how this Ephesians road leads t he thinking Christian out of dispensationalism.

Paul’s full statement in Ephesians 3:1–10 reads as follows:

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles — if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.”

Paul certainly states that “by revelation there was made known to me the mystery.” We are clearly dealing with a biblical mystery, and one that was especially revealed to Paul. But notice what he actually says:

1. The “sons of men.” Paul states that “in other generations [it] was not made known to the sons of men” (Eph 3:5a). By “sons of men [Gk.: huiois ton anthropon]” Paul is referring broadly to all men, especially those outside of Israel, the Gentiles. He uses the phrase that often appears in the Old Testament to refer to men generically, the wider human race.

David uses this phrase in Psalm 14:2 in speaking of the fool who says there is no God and who works wickedness in order to “eat up my people” (Psa 14:4). We see this generic usage also in Psalm 21:10; 31:19; etc. Indeed, the psalmist declares that “the Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men” (Psa 33:19; cp. 53:2; Jer 32:19). Even when he uses the term inclusively as including Israel, it is because Israel is a part of the whole human race. Ecclesiastes frequently employs the phrase generically (Eccl 1:13; 2:3; 3:10, 18–19; 8:11; 9:3, 12). Daniel 2:38 agrees.

Thus, Paul is teaching that the human race outside of Israel as such did not know the blessings God had in store for them. Paul has been commissioned to take this news to them: “of which I was made a minister’ according to the gift of God’s grace” (Eph 3:7). We must remember that he was appointed as the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5; 11:13; Gal 2:8; Eph 3:5–6; 1 Tim 2:7).

2. “As it has now been revealed.” Paul continues by adding: “as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Eph 3:5b). The word “as” (hos) is a comparative. That is, this revelation was not revealed during the Old Testament era to the greater degree as it is now revealed in the New Testament. He is comparing the revelation of the mystery in the Old Testament to its fuller revelation in the New Testament. Thus, the earlier revelation was not to the same degree as that which “has now been revealed to his Holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.” We must not overlook the comparative.

3. Paul’s statement elsewhere. In fact, we know he is speaking comparatively, not only because of he uses the word hos, but because of what he states at the end of Romans. In Romans 16:25–27 we read:

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.”

Note that in this passage he clearly declares that this mystery “now is manifested,” but then immediately adds: “and by the Scriptures of the prophets.” Here he speaks of the Old Testament Scripture for he opens Romans by a similar expression. At Romans 1:2 he speaks of the promise “beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2), which definitely refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. Indeed, all through Romans he refers to the Old Testament as “the Scripture[s]” (Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4), just as he does elsewhere (1 Cor 15:3–4; Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim 5:18).

Thus, this “mystery” is a revelation of God that cannot be accessed by man’s unaided wisdom. But it appeared before in the Old Testament Scriptures, though it is now made more central and clear in the New Testament. In fact, Paul even adds in Romans 16:26b that this “has been made known to all the nations.” So then, this mystery is no longer confined to Israel in her covenantal Scriptures, but is now being proclaimed to all the nations.

Conclusion

I am now concluding this brief series. Though in my next blog I will bring together all of these thoughts into a brief tract that you might useful for giving to your dispensational friends. I will leave out the tongue-in-cheek humor so as to make the study more useful in your theological evangelism.

As a master builder Paul lays down several nice pavement stones for his Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism. In Ephesians we do not discover a stray, unclear statement that might conflict with dispensationalism. We find one statement after another in the doctrinal portion of Ephesians that clearly and overtly contradicts several of dispensationalism’s main tenants. We have in Ephesians Paul’s six-fold witness against this wide-spread, confusing doctrinal construct.

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (Part 5)

2010-03-30T10:27:00.007-04:00

Part 5: Forward to the Past
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Introduction

In my past four blogs (seven, if you have a time machine and have driven into the future and have already read all of them) I have been presenting Paul’s case against dispensationalism as found in his Epistle to the Ephesians. Just as evangelicals use “The Romans Road to Salvation” as an evangelistic tool, I believe we can reach out to dispensationalists by employing “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.”

We need to understand an important reality: dispensationalism is not simply an eschatological outlook, a prophetic construct. Rather it is a whole, complex, and distinctive theology. And as a theological system it differs from mainline evangelical theology in many areas, impacting most of the formal loci of systematic theology.

Dispensationalism’s theological problems arise from its devastating mistakes regarding: (1) the role and function of Israel, (b) the proper apostolic interpretation of prophecy, (iii) the unified, progressive nature of redemptive history, and (four) . . . I forgot what I was going to say. These system errors (at least the first three I mention, since I cannot remember the fourth — though I am sure it was a good one) are absolutely destructive of a biblical construct for systematic theology.

One of the most remarkable and disturbing aspects of dispensationalism is its inherent redemptive retrogression. Dispensationalism necessarily requires a future re-institution of blood sacrifices to be conducted in a rebuilt temple under the direction of a new, formal line of priests. It rejects the biblical view that Christ is the final redemptive blood-letting in that he is the conclusive, perfect fulfillment of the sacrificial system. Though in the millennium “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid” (Isa 11:6) and though “the wolf and the lamb shall feed together” (Isa 65:25), the lamb and the kid had better keep a wary eye out for any approaching priest.

Once again, Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians exposes dispensational error. And this time one of their most bizarre errors. Let us see what Paul has to say about the matter.

The Rebuilt Temple and the Old Testament

In order to exalt Israel, to restore her to where she left off in redemptive-history, to re-institute her sacrificial system, and to employ a long line of priests, dispensationalism applies its off-and-on-again literalistic sleight-of-hand hermeneutic to argue for a rebuilt temple. As they read the Old Testament (divorced from any knowledge of Christ, the Apostles, and the New Testament) dispensationalists note Old Testament statements regarding the temple which suggest to them that it will be built again in the future.

For instance, the Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel, 1996; hereinafter, DPT) states that:

“the prophecy of a future Jewish temple in Jerusalem . . . is part of the greater restoration promise made to national Israel. This promise, made at the close of the first temple period (cf. Isa. 1:24–2:4; 4:2–6; 11:1–12:6; 25–27; 32; 34–35; 40–66; Jer. 30–33; Ezek. 36–48; Amos 9:11–15; Joel 2:28–3:21; Micah 4:–5; 7:11–20; Zeph. 3:9–20), made again by the prophets who prophesied after the return from captivity (cf. “Dan. 9–12; Hag. 2:5–9; Zech. 8–14; Mal. 3–4), and reaffirmed in the New Testament (cf. Acts 3:19–26; Rom. 11:1–32) contained inseparably linked elements of fulfillment. . .” (DPT 404).

Before I proceed further I must briefly comment on DPT’s listing of prophetic passages, using its first two cited prophecies by way of example: Isaiah 1:24–2:4 and Isaiah 4:2–6.

Regarding the Isaiah 1:24–2:4 proof-text: Oddly enough, dispensationalism’s (occasional, though erratic and sometimes dizzying, but always fun) literalistic approach to this prophecy produces an absolute absurdity. It requires the ridiculous notion that Jerusalem will actually “will be established as the chief of the mountains, / and will be raised above the hills” (Isa 2:2b). Somehow Jerusalem will remain intact as the tectonic upheaval and its consequent mountain-thrusting forces raise Mount Zion to new heights.

Furthermore, despite the enormous difficulties involved in scaling this mountain, “all the nations” will stream to it — even though it is now on a mountain higher than Mt. Everest (apparently snow tires will be much more effective in the millennium than they are today).

What is more, Jerusalem itself will dwarf the mountain upon which it sits, for it will be 1500 miles high — according to the often-literalistic, ever system-building hermeneutic approach to Revelation 21:16. And yet the world population (using today’s figures, which probably are lower than those of the peace-enhanced millennium) of six billion people will gather three times a year in Jerusalem for worship festivals (Deut 16:16). The traffic congestion will be awful, probably worse than the famed Orange Crush in Orange County, California where I-5 and Highways 22 and 57 come together.

Despite the enormous height of the orogenically (tectonics + volcanism = orogenesis) re-shaped mountain and the even more impressive size of the city, the upper winds apparently will be stilled (perhaps due to their being over 1470 miles above the earth’s atmosphere — they surely will have petered out at that distance). After all, according to DPT’s second set of proof-texts (which does not even mention a temple, by the way) the smog will be suffocating — virtually on the order of the thermal-inertia-induced Venusian atmosphere. Note that the verse states (literalistically!) that “the Lord will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke” (Isa 4:5). Thus, the “whole area of Mount Zion” — not part of it, that would not be literalistic! — will be covered by “smoke.” Apparently this is at least partly due to the automotive exhaust emitted by enormous number of cars necessary for carrying six billion people to the thrice-yearly festivals.

But we are analyzing Paul’s “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.” What does Ephesians have to say about all of this? I mean what does it say about all of this beyond that fact that Jesus is enthroned “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:21) which (according to dispensational exegesis) matches perfectly with his ruling from a 1500 mile high Jerusalem?

The Rebuilt Temple and Ephesians

We have been seeing that Paul is not a dispensationalist. What is more, we have noted that his letter to the Ephesians serves as a blatant, point-for-point rebuttal to dispensationalism. Let us now consider Paul’s understanding of the rebuilt temple.

Paul is a blatant spiritualizer, according to the dispensational system. For in Ephesians 2:19–22 he states:

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

The Apostle certainly believes in a rebuilt temple, but not one built of stone. He sees “the whole building”as currently in his day already “being fitted together” and “growing into a holy temple in the Lord.”He allows this despite the fact that the earthly temple is still standing as he writes. And despite the fact that the millennium still lies off in the distance (already almost 2000 years distant, at least). Remember: the prophecies of the glorious, rebuilt temple refer to the millennial temple, not the tribulation temple because “the tribulation temple will be built by unbelieving Jews . . . [whereas] the millennial temple will be built by the Messiah (Zech. 6:12–13) and redeemed Jews” (DPT 404).

To make matters worse, Paul sees the rebuilt temple in spiritual terms because it is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” with “Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.” And the current and ongoing building process involves Christians themselves as the building stones for “you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” This is why Jesus could inform the Samaritan woman: “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. . . But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (John 4:21, 23). And Jesus presents this “coming” hour as a permanent, final reality not to be withdrawn as a new order of localized, physical temple worship is re-instituted.

This is no stray statement by Paul: he returns to this theme time-and-again. We read of his conception of the spiritual temple in the following verses:

“Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” (1 Cor 3:16–17)

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor 6:19)

“What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I will Dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people’” (2 Cor 6:16).

The third sample in 2 Corinthians 6:16 is important because it specially applies Old Testament prophecy to the New Testament spiritual temple. Notice how Paul argues: “We are the temple of the living; just as God said, ‘I will Dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’” The Old Testament backdrop to this “just as God said” statement is Ezekiel 37:27: “My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”

What is remarkable about all of this is that this Paul takes this statement from Ezekiel’s prophecy of Israel’s dry bones coming back to life. Thus, Paul commits two hermeneutic sins: (1) he applies a prophecy regarding Israel to the church and (2) he spiritualizes God’s prophetic dwelling, applying it to God’s spiritual indwelling his people, rather than God’s building a new temple.

Conclusion

Paul’s writings destroy dispensationalism — which may explain why dispensationalists prefer to take Old Testament texts on their own, apart from any New Testament understanding. Truly, Paul provides a tract for our times, an “Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.”

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (4)

2010-03-16T11:58:00.007-04:00

Part 4: Promises, Promises
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Introduction

In this blog I am continuing a study in Ephesians which shows that Paul’s theology contradicts the foundational teachings of dispensationalism. As I noted in the preceding articles (which I have cleverly named: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3): It seems almost as if Paul intentionally designed Ephesians to undermine dispensationalism. Ephesians is virtually a tract to reach out to dispensationalists. Thus, I am outlining “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.”

Of course, if you are a dispensationalist you might initially be tempted to thump your desk (being careful not to strike your mouse so that you lose your Internet connection) and loudly yodel: “Ah ha!!! So then: you admit dispensationalism existed in the first century!!! I rest my case!!!” (Dispensationalists use abundant exclamation points when they speak or write: such is their excitement.)

However, this clever response will not do. After all, in Ephesians 4:11 Paul notes that God “gave some as apostles, and some as prophets.” Indeed, he himself is an apostle possessing prophetic powers, for elsewhere he clearly states: “I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge” (1 Cor 13:2). Thus, he could well have been looking down the unfolding centuries to Dublin, Ireland in October, 1827 when J. N. Darby fell off his horse and struck his head so hard that he came up with the idea of dispensationalism. (When most of us fall of our horses and strike our heads we do not come up with whole new theological constructs. But such was the genius of Darby: he could multi-task.)

Furthermore, we must remember that Paul was not only prophetically-gifted but deeply concerned for his flock. Thus while originally among the Ephesians (Acts 20:17) he prophesied: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking silly things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29–30. Note: some manuscripts of Acts have the Latin word sillius [“silly”] here instead of the Greek word diestrammena [“perversities”]. This textual variant suggests that Paul knew theological innovators were often comedians.)

(I would also point out that 1 Tim 4:1 reads: “the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to silly spirits and doctrines of dispensationalists” [1 Tim 4:1]. I confess though that this textual reading also includes two variants that may be translated “silly” and “dispensationalists.” Apparently early copyists realized that Paul was speaking of the year 1830 when the dispensational system was finally completed and presented to the world — just in time for the Powerscourt Conferences in 1831–33.)

Israel’s Promises and Jesus’ Church

Now let us move on in our study of Paul’s anti-dispensational polemic. Actually, let us back-up. In my last blog I worked my way through Ephesians 2:19. I will now return to Ephesians 2:11–12 to demonstrate the unthinkable: Paul applies to the new covenant church the old covenant promises given to Israel. This single theological truth absolutely destroys dispensationalism.

In the dispensational view Paul failed to “rightly divide the word of truth.” He foolishly read the Old Testament in the light of the interpretive teaching of Jesus and his divinely-inspired apostles. He should have continued reading the Old Testament as if Jesus had never come and had never rebuked the Jews for misinterpreting Scripture (Matt 22:29; Mark 12:24; Luke 25–27; John 5:39). He should have not depended on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to assist him in understanding the Scriptures. Dispensationalists even argue that he committed a hermeneutic stumble when he wrote in Ephesians “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him” (Eph 1:17; cp. John 14:26; 16:13; Acts 2:16–18; Rom 7:6; 8:5; 1 Cor 2:10–15; 2 Cor 3:6; Col 1:9; 2 Pet 1:21).

One of the classic problems dispensationalism has created for itself revolves around the new covenant. Jeremiah 31:31–34 speaks of a new covenant that will supersede (uh oh!) the old covenant: “‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord.”

Unfortunately for dispensationalism and their flawed hermeneutic, Jeremiah’s prophecy states that this new covenant will be made “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” Given their random, only-when-needed-to-save-the-system literalism, the dispensational system forbids the establishing of the new covenant with any other people group than Israel. This has generated intense debate within dispensationalism, leading to their proposing four different approaches to Jeremiah’s rather simple prophecy. Apparently, this is their favored way of “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). Indeed, they actually read that text as: “rightly dividing over the word of truth,” that is, they divide themselves up into warring camps while deconstructing biblical texts.

The problem for dispensationalism arises from Jesus’ own teaching. The Lord clearly establishes this new covenant when he ordains the Lord’s Supper as one of the two sacraments for his new covenant church: “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’” (Luke 22:20; cp. 1 Cor 11:25). What Jesus is effectively doing is declaring a “new Israel”: the new covenant church.

In my last blog I noted that Paul saw Jew and Gentile merged — permanently — in one body, the church (Eph 2:11–19). Now I would note that in the early part of that text he teaches that this new, merged body — the church — receives the Old Testament promises given to Israel. Consider Paul’s statement to these Gentile Christians: “remember that you were at that time [before your conversion] separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12).

What is happening here? Paul is speaking of matters involving “the commonwealth of Israel.” He is declaring that before these Gentiles came to Christ they were “strangers to the covenants of promise.” This necessarily means that now that they have come to Christ they are no longer strangers to the covenants of promise. That is, they are now recipients of “the covenants of promise,” which include the distinctive Abrahamic Covenant with Israel (Gal 3:16–18). After all, he goes on to say that though they were “a that time” (Eph 2:12) excluded and strangers they now “have been brought bear by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13) and that Christ “broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” that separated Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14).

Thus, if Gentiles are no longer “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,” if Gentiles are no longer “strangers to the covenants of promise,” if Gentiles “have been brought near,” if Jew and Gentile are merged into one body , and if that which distinguishes Jew and Gentile has been “broken down” (the “dividing wall”), then by parity of reasoning: the Gentiles receive the promises given to Israel. How can it be otherwise? The two are now one, so that the promises to the old covenant people belong to the new covenant people who have been merged with them.

Is this not demanded by Christ’s own establishing of the Lord’s Supper as the new covenant sacrament for his church? Was not Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5; 11:13; Gal 2:8; 1 Tim 2:7), a promoter of the new covenant, calling himself a “servant of the new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6)? Did he not explain the new covenant sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to the church at Corinth (1 Cor 11:23–25ff) — which he received from the Lord himself (1 Cor 11:23a)?

Of course, the application of Jewish promises and prophecies is abundantly taught throughout the New Testament (which is why dispensationalists want to interpret the Old Testament alone, as if Christ had not come). But our interest is here in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians. This apostle to the Gentiles includes Christian Gentiles among the members of “the commonwealth of Israel” and under “the covenants of promise.” Thus, he sees the church as the recipient of the old covenant promises and prophecies.

Conclusion

That’s all. I’m tired.

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (3)

2010-03-09T11:57:00.050-05:00

Part 3: Separating What God Has Joined Together
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Don’t you think the British have a funny way of pronouncing “aluminum”? I only mention this because an important key to good writing is opening with an effective “hook” to grab your reader’s attention. Now that I have your attention please go to the next paragraph.

This is my third installment in my series titled “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.” (Now you can see why I didn’t want to open with this rather boring sentence. No zest whatsoever. In fact, it wearies me to think about it.) In my mission work among the dispensationalists I have found that Ephesians is a helpful epistle for exposing several of their leading theological errors — and in a compressed, self-contained format. It is almost as if Paul wrote it as a tract to reach out to them as he ministered among the Jews in the synagogues (for that is precisely where you would find the dispensationalists gathering to learn more about their old covenant future in the millennium where they will be the Jews’ servants).

Irony in the Theology of Ephesians

It is ironic that Ephesians would be so helpful for summarily critiquing dispensationalism. After all, the word “dispensation” occurs only four times in the Bible (in the King James Version) and two of them are in Ephesians (Eph 1:10; 3:2). That the word also appears in Colossians 1:25 is expected since it is known as the “twin epistle” of Ephesians because it covers much of the same material and in the same general order. Colossians is as similar to Ephesians as Jude is to 2 Peter. And it as similar to Ephesians as Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth is to all other dispensational books.

Nor should we be surprised to find the word “dispensation” in 1 Corinthians 9:17. After all, that church suffers a great number of debilitating problems. Indeed, the word “ignorant” occurs in the Corinthian corpus more than in any other epistles sent to one community: 1 Cor 10:1; 12:1; 14:38; 2 Cor 1:8; 2:11 (KJV).

The irony of Ephesians being a contra-dispensational missive is intensified when we note another startling fact. In the NASB version exactly twenty-five verses in Ephesians contain words that start with the exact same letter as does the word “rapture”: redemption (1:7, 14; 4:30); riches (1:7; 3:8, 15), reason (1:15; 3:1, 14; 5:14), revelation, reveal, or revealed (1:17; 3:3, 5), riches or rich (1:17; 2:4, 7), raised (1:20; 2:6), right (1:20), rule (1:21), rest (2:3), result (2:9; 4:14), remember (2:11, 12), reconcile (2:16), referring (3:4), read (3:4), rulers (3:10; 6:12), rooted (3:16), reference (4:22; 5:32), renewed (4:23), righteousness (4:24; 5:9; 6:14), rather (as an adverb, not as the family name of the former CBS news anchor, 4:28; 5:4), respect (5:33), render (6:7), receive (6:8), and resist (6:13).

This indisputable phenomenon can be no more an “accident” of translation history than the fact that the seven churches of Revelation outline church history with dates involving precise increments of tens. According to the Scofield Reference Bible each age of the church both starts and ends with dates that are perfectly divisible by ten. Furthermore, that exactly twenty-five words would start with “r” in an English translation cannot be an accident. As everyone knows, twenty-five is the sum of two twelves (the number of the tribes of Israel), with a one thrown in just for fun.

Getting Our Bearings

In my two preceding installments I noted that: (1) Christ is currently enthroned as Messianic king (Eph 1:20-23). He is not awaiting a postponed kingdom opportunity as per dispensationalism. (2) We are currently ruling and reigning with him (Eph 2:6). We are not awaiting a postponed kingdom of priests as per dispensationalism. These are debilitating observations for dispensationalism which is rigorously premillennial, expecting Christ’s future kingdom and our future reigning with him.

In this article I will show that God has merged Jew and Gentile into one body — finally and forever. This one point all by itself destroys the whole dispensational scheme. After all it contradicts one of its two foundation stones: the distinction between Israel and the church. (The other fundamental is the “literal” interpretation of Scripture which is used randomly as a deus ex machina to make the system appear to work.)

The Jew and Gentile Merger

The leading classic dispensationalist scholar of the last fifty years is Charles C. Ryrie. On p. 39 in his important 1995 work Dispensationalism he reiterates his 1966 observation from the book’s first edition: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” According to Ryrie: “A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.” He then states rather dogmatically (and self-destructively): “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

In introducing the sine qua non of dispensationalism (p. 38) he discounts three issues that some might consider essential. He notes that “distinguishably different economies [in God’s] governing the affairs of the world” is not distinctive — despite the system’s name “dispensationalism.” He then points out more narrowly that even “the number of dispensations” is not a fundamental issue — despite the dominant affirmation among dispensationalists of seven distinct dispensations. He finally denies that “the issue of premillennialism” is determinative of dispensationalism.

When he finally comes to stating the sine qua non he begins with the Israel / church distinction. This is a fatal admission, for it contradicts the clear New Testament revelation and destroys the flow of redemptive history. Let us see how this is so.

We must note two aspects of the matter that come back to haunt the system. In dispensationalism’s two-peoples-of-God theology they must hold that God (1) distinguishes Jew and Gentile and (2) that he does so permanently (at least in history, though many carry the distinction into eternity). How are these observations fatal to the system? And in light of our study in Ephesians, how do we see that problem in Paul’s epistle?

We must first ask the question regarding the dispensationalist’s assumption: Who makes up the people known as “Israel”? The obvious answer is “Jews,” the genetic offspring of Abraham. But then the question arises in the debate: Does God establish a new entity in redemptive-history which also includes Jews? The answer is: Yes. The church of Jesus Christ. In fact, it was established in the very context and on the foundation of Israel.

Indeed, Paul notes very clearly and forcefully that God merges Jew and Gentile into one body, which we now call the church. He even encourages the Gentiles with the knowledge that they are now included among God’s people and are partakers of their blessings. They are not separate and distinct from Israel but are adopted into her. Note Ephesians 2:11–19:

“Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands — remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household.”

Note very carefully what Paul states and how it contradicts the notion of a distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the church:

1. Paul states that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12). This is an observation about their past condition.

2. He argues that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . strangers to the covenants of promise” (plural covenants / singular promise). This is an observation about their past condition.

3. He reiterates the Gentiles’ former condition that has now been changed: “But now in Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.

4. He resolutely declares that Christ has effected “peace” in that he “made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (Eph 2:14). This is their new experience and condition.

5. He restates this once again by noting that Christ made “the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15). This is their new experience and condition.

6. He will not leave the matter alone, for he recasts this very thought noting that Christ determined to “reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” This is their new experience and condition.

7. He refuses to cave to the Jews and dispensationalists of his day by insisting that Christ “came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were far away” (Eph 2:17). This is their new experience and condition.

8. He comes dangerously close to becoming a classic bore when he states still again that “through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18). This is their new experience and condition.

9. He risks never being able to enroll in Dallas Theological Seminary by absolutely and positively refusing to cease and desist as he becomes stuck in a groove like a broken record (Or to update this cliche: like a CD with a child’s candy-sticky fingerprint on it. I don’t think this will ever catch on though. We are stuck with the older cliche. But as a writer I hold the rule: “Avoid cliches like the plague.” So let’s forget this whole cliche enterprise and move on): “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.

10. He risks becoming an absolute and detestable bore at rapture parties by droning interminably: “but you are fellow citizens with the saints [obviously the Jews], and are of God’s [singular] household” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.

11. When will it all end? Can we never rapture out of this endless loop-cycle? Paul states once again that the Gentiles are a part of “the [singular] whole building, being fitted together” and “are being built together” (Eph 2:21). This is their new experience and condition.

How many different ways can the denial of a distinction between Jew and Gentile be stated? I am exhausted in laboring through this repetitive passage. Paul’s theology has absolutely no place for the first sine qua non of dispensationalism. And remember: sine qua non means “without which [there is] nothing.” That is, “without this element there is no system.” Though it is an essential definitive precondition for dispensationalism Paul will not allow it to stand.

Elsewhere Paul claims to be a “master builder” who is intent on laying “a foundation” (1 Cor 3:10). But here he becomes a one man wrecking crew. He has removed dispensationalism’s chief cornerstone. Like Jesus commanding Lazarus’ friends to “remove the stone” (John 11:39), Paul single-handedly removes this foundation stone. It is almost as if Paul were demanding: “raze it, raze it, to its very foundation” (Psa 137:7). Dispensationalism is not built upon a rock but upon sand. But “if the foundations are destroyed what can the rapturists do?”

But this represents only my first complaint about the matter before us. There is still another. If you read the passage carefully (I dare say you could even read the passage recklessly — even left-handedly — and come to the same conclusion) you will note that the whole tenor of Paul’s theological observation is that: Jew and Gentile have been merged into one body forever. There is absolutely nothing in the passage that hints at or even will allow that this union into one new body is temporary. Everything about the passage demands that this merger be permanent.

Read it again and try to find any intimation that this merger of Jew and Gentile is just temporary until the Rapture or the millennium or whatever. You will find nothing that leads to that conclusion and everything that militates against it:

“Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands — remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's [singular] household.”

Christ did not preach a temporary “truce” between Jew and Gentile, but a permanent “peace.” He did not suspend the enmity between Jew and Gentile for awhile but “put to death the enmity.” He did not bring the two peoples together for a time (nor even for a time, times, and half a time) but he permanently created a new man. Dispensationalism’s theology requires that ultimately we must separate what God has joined together. It allows the rebuilding of the dividing wall.

Conclusion

I don’t know how badly a system must miss the mark before its adherents admit their mistake and leave it behind. It has been said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. I would say that dispensationalism is a farce resigned to confusion.

If you are still having trouble escaping dispensationalism, I highly recommend that you get our DVD “The Late Great Planet Church.” You really need to rapture out of the system.

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism

2010-03-02T14:15:00.002-05:00

Part 2: The Rise of the Christians
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

In my previous blog I began relating to Reformed Christians a useful theological tool that I call “The Ephesians Road Out Dispensationalism.” I developed this instrument about twenty years ago after long and fruitless interactions with dispensationalists which transpired over a number of years. This is the second installment expositing this evangelistic tract.

Background to Product Development

In my eschatological debates twenty and thirty years ago I had fruitlessly attempted to prove the impossible. I was trying to convince my dispensationalist friends that the rapture was not going to occur on the day we were engaged in discussion. Day after day they laughed me to scorn. Day after day I continued to fail in convincing anyone that the rapture was not going to occur that very day. My success was being hampered by their annoying habit of continually looking upwards to the clouds while I was trying to point out Scripture texts to support my argument. This kept my seed arguments from finding root. My seed could find no purchase.

Those debates inevitably ended at midnight — the very close of the day. At that moment the dispensationalist would confidently assert: “Maybe tomorrow.” As I pulled my hair in frustration, I would hear them walking off lost in song: “Coming again, coming again / Maybe morning may be noon, / Maybe evening and maybe soon.” All I could do was stumble away with my head bowed low in exhaustion while humming: “You load sixteen tons and what do you get, / Another day older and deep in regret” (my apologies to Merle Travis — or George S. Davis; the original authorship of this song is still in dispute). I began to surmise that engaging in debate with a dispensationalist is a lot like saddling a cow: It is a whole lot of work, and there is not much point in it.

But I began to rethink my methods. Through this process of self-examination arose The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism. Previously I had found it extremely difficult to pull dispensationalists away from their network diagrams, Venn diagrams, Bachman diagrams, block definition diagrams, model diagrams, dot-and-cross diagrams, existential graphs, bar charts, message sequence charts, pie charts, tree charts, flow charts, line charts, bubble charts, radar charts, candlestick charts, Kagi charts, Gantt charts, Pareto charts, PERT charts, Pournelle charts, sparklines, histograms, cartograms, nomograms, box plots, scatterplots, probability plots, tube maps, value streaming maps, Karnaugh maps, stereographic projection graphs, Dymaxion graphs, wave-number frequency graphs, and so forth.

For the life of me I could not convince them that these charts and graphs were only in recently-produced study Bibles and not in the original biblical manuscripts. Too many dispensationalists were convinced that archaeologists were on the very brink of discovering the Scofield Reference Bible in the original Greek. After all, Joseph Smith was so successful in finding his Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic golden plates on September 22, 1823 near his home in Manchester, New York (though the angel Moroni promptly took them off and hid them)! Archaeologists were so fortunate as to discover the Hebrew Copper Scroll in Cave III at Khirbet Qumran on March 14, 1952 (though some Bedouin shepherds attempted to sell them to antiquities dealers in downtown Cairo)! Why, why, why then may we not expect biblical scholars to find near Scofield’s birthplace in Lenawee Country, Michigan, at least some aluminum foil wrappers containing the original Greek version of the Scofield Scrolls? Such was the depth of their trust in their early church fathers, Darby, Scofield, and CHM.

My debates became even more difficult with the work of Robert Gaskins and Dennis Austin of Forethought, Inc. in Sunnyvale, California. They created the original version of a computer software program that was eventually to become Powerpoint. When this presentation tool was sold to Microsoft in 1987 it was only a matter of time before it would be obtained by televangelists. It began to empower dispensationalists even more: Now they could change their charts and graphs at the first seismic readings of another earthquake or of early onset volcanism causing harmonic tremors. No longer were they trapped with expensive canvas wall charts that were outdated and in need of revision. They could now quickly and easily change their presentations each day. Their charts would appear always fresh and engaging; their arguments persuasive and convincing. And in color (not their arguments but their Powerpoint presentations; televangelists never use colorful language).

But enough history. Let us get down to our exegesis of The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism. Hopefully you will find this helpful in ministering among native dispensationalists. In my first installment I noted that in Ephesians Paul clearly declares Christ was enthroned as king in the first century. And this proved that his kingdom was not postponed until there could arise CNN to report the sudden disappearance of millions of Christians. Christ’s kingdom and kingly rule began at his first coming. His kingdom was not postponed, causing God to establish Plan B for history in the establishment of the Church.

We Presently Rule with Christ

To add insult to injury, Paul continues his anti-dispensational diatribe in his little missive. His next step transforms Ephesians into dispensationalism’s right strawy epistle. The heck with James! Dispensationalists find Ephesians quite a bit more strawy because immediately after affirming Christ’s first century enthronement he takes the next logical step. He declares that all those who believe in Christ (beginning in the first century) are enthroned with Christ! All the hopes of ruling over cities during a future millennium are destroyed in this maneuver. How dare he! But alas, there it is in black and white (unless you have a red-letter edition of the Bible, in which case it would appear in black and white and red).

Note once again the clarity of Paul’s theology:

“God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:4–6).

And where had Paul just stated that Christ was seated? According to Ephesians 1:20–21 God “raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” He is at God’s right hand ruling over all.

Say it ain’t so! According to the plain-and-simple method of literal interpretation our enthronement must wait until after the second coming of Christ in the rapture, the resurrection of believers, the conversion of the Jews, the building of the temple in Jerusalem, the unveiling of Antichrist, the outbreak of the great tribulation, the destruction of two-thirds of the Jewish race, the arising of the beast, the formulation of the revived Roman Empire, the imposing of the mark of the beast for buying and selling, the third coming of Christ at the second advent, the battle of Armageddon, the sanctification of temple for millennial use, and the establishment of the global Department of Redundancy Department.

Why does Paul speak in the past tense by using the aorist verbal forms of “raised” and “seated?” Ah! Perhaps these are aorist futures which really mean he will in the future raise us and seat us! Why does he teach that Christians in the first century are already enthroned with Christ, that is, that they are already ruling and reigning with him in his kingdom? Paul is surely not rightly dividing the word of truth. He has mixed dispensations. He is not interpreting literally. He has strayed from Scofield’s notes. Perhaps this is proof for a late-date for Revelation! Paul obviously did not have verse 4 of Revelation 20 to guide him in his entire eschatological and theological understanding.

Or has Paul missed the mark? Maybe it is the late-blooming (1830) dispensational construct that is mistaken. Maybe Paul knew exactly what he was talking about. Maybe we as Christians are already enthroned with Christ.

Indeed, may I be so bold as to suggest that maybe he, Peter, and John actually know the truth? After all, Peter calls first-century Christians a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:9), i.e., a kingdom of priests. And even John, long before he speaks of the millennium (which occurs in only one chapter in all of the Bible, which happens also to be its most difficult book) and our reigning with Christ as kings and priest (Rev 20:6), states in the past tense: “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father” (Rev 1:6).

To make matters worse, Paul even mentions the celebration of Christ’s enthronement in Ephesians 4. He speaks of his enthronement in terms reflecting a formal Roman triumph where the conquering ruler returns to his capital and divides the spoil with his jubilant citizens. In Ephesians 4:8 Paul states regarding the heavenly-enthroned Christ: “When He ascended on high, / He led captive a host of captives, / And He gave gifts to men.”

Conclusion

Thus, once again we see how Ephesians can function as a counter to dispensationalism. It is truly a tract that could be titled “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.”

The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism (Part 1)

2010-02-23T12:30:00.010-05:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Personal Background

I was once a dispensationalist. I was converted under a dispensational ministry (a youth camp at Florida Bible College: 1966). I immediately joined a dispensational church and eventually taught Sunday school (Calvary Bible Church, Chattanooga, Tenn.: 1966–1973). I worked my way through college while employed at a dispensational bookstore (Lanham’s Bible Bookshop, Chattanooga, Tenn.: 1969–73).

I graduated from a dispensational college with a degree in Biblical Studies (Tennessee Temple College: 1973). While enrolled there I took a course titled “Premillennialism” (taught by my favorite teacher, Dr. Dennis Wisdom: 1972).While there all my courses were informed by dispensational theology (dispensationalism is not simply an eschatology; it is a fully operational, wholesale theology.) My first books forming the foundation of my personal library were dispensational works (the very first one being J. Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come). I was enrolled for two years at a dispensational seminary (Grace Theological Seminary 1973–75) — until I raptured to Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, Mississippi: 1975)

I was truly a dispensationalist. An academically-trained, research-oriented, Greek-reading dispensationalist. I didn’t get my dispensationalism totally from televangelists (though several times I heard Jack Van Impe preach in chapel at Tennessee Temple College and Bible conferences hosted by its mother church, Highland Park Baptist Church). I got my dispensationalism from Ph.D.s trained at dispensational schools and from reading the more carefully written books by Walvoord, Ryrie, and Pentecost. I even knew the word “Rapture” didn’t appear in Scripture. I was no fly-by-night dispensationalist; I was armed and dangerous.

But I converted out of dispensationalism (see earlier blog: “I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist”): by God’s grace I escaped the confusing and complicated system. I will confess, however, that converting out of dispensationalism cannot be accomplished overnight. Even once the break has been effected the convert will require years of re-learning the Bible. There is no such thing as a quick fix.

In fact, the confusion caused by the dispensational system is such that for several years I still had dispensational reflexes which I had to overcome. For instance, I reflexively began looking heavenward the first few times I heard there was an earthquake somewhere in the world. For a number of months I continued to instinctively begin each spoken sentence with the words: “According to biblical prophecy.” But this all began to fade until here I am today: not the least inclined to predict the date of the rapture or suggest the name of the Antichrist. I have even let my membership in Former Dispensationalists Anonymous lapse. I have now been sober from the wine of dispensationalism for over thirty-five years.

Developing the Tool

In an evangelism course (Course number: Bi-203) at Tennessee Temple College we learned “The Romans Road to Salvation.” This is a method of gospel witness that presents the gospel totally from within Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. This is easy to do since the basics of the gospel are embedded in Romans. This is a convenient and effective means of evangelism because it keeps one’s attention on one book of the Bible, preventing the confusion that can arise from jumping from book to book.

Over the years I have developed an effective approach for witnessing to dispensationalists. I call it “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism.” Though dispensationalism is a relatively recent theology in the history of Christianity (having arisen around 1830), when you read Ephesians you could almost surmise that Paul was writing this letter to combat dispensationalism! You could well imagine a first century Christian going to a Christian Scroll Store and picking up a copy of Ephesians in the Counter Cults section.

Ephesians runs roughshod over so many distinctives of dispensationalism that it serves as an effective vehicle for driving Christians out of this false theological quagmire. You will find this vehicle so easy to operate that you will watch in amazement as your erstwhile dispensational friends are driven desperately to searching the newspapers to see if these things be so. But take heart: they will eventually return to Scripture where you want them. There they will crawl into your Ephesiansmobile, crank it up, and drive out of the valley of the shadow of dispensationalism.

I will briefly survey a few elements in Ephesians so that you might use “The Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism” as a means of witnessing to dispensationalists. Let’s get started.

Christ is Now King

Dispensationalism holds that Christ came in the first century to offer an earthly-political kingdom to Israel, but that she rejected it. Consequently, Christ withdrew his kingdom offer, postponed his kingdom, and then established the Church as a stop-gap until the Jews are converted later. At that time they will be ready to accept him as king so that the millennium may be established. Dispensationalists argue vehemently that Christ is not now reigning as king.

However, Paul contradicts this (unusual) dispensational doctrine. In Ephesians 1:20–23 he declares: “He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.”

Several enormous problems present themselves to dispensationalism’s postponed kingdom view, showing that Christ is as a matter of fact now enthroned as king.

First, we see quite clearly that Jesus in fact has already been seated at God’s right hand in heaven. This being “seated” (aorist participle signifying a past reality) at “God’s right hand” obviously speaks of his being seated at God’s throne in heaven. After all, Jesus himself declares elsewhere that he “sat down with My Father on his throne” (cp. Mark 16:19; Acts 7:56; Heb 8:1; 1 Pet 3:22).

In fact, when he was being tried by the rulers of Israel they asked him if he was the Christ. He chastised them for not believing him in this regard (Luke 22:66–78). He then warned them that he was soon to be seated with God in heaven: “But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69). No postponement theory here: in the very context of Israel’s formal, official, and final rejection of him he declared that he would be “seated at the right hand of the power of God” despite their rejection.

Second, we further learn that his throne is in heaven and not on the earth. This contradicts a fundamental of dispensationalism’s premillennial scheme. The Messianic throne is not a literal throne on earth, it is a spiritual reality in heaven. Thus, his reign does not involve political and bureaucratic rule. Rather it is a spiritual-redemptive reality. The earthly kingship of Christ is absolutely denied by Paul.

Third, this enthronement in Ephesians gives Christ authority “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” Indeed, God “put all things in subjection under His feet.” This is as high an authority as is possible. What would be the point of his coming to the earth to rule in a literal millennium? He is the ruler of all things now. Why would he come to rule in Jerusalem in a millennium? Why would he leave his heavenly throne where he rules universally to return to his earthly footstool to rule locally (Isa 66:1; Matt 5:35; Acts 7:49)?

Fourth, in fact, Paul says that Christ’s rule continues “not only in this age [right now!], but also in the one to come.” If dispensationalists claim that Christ is not now ruling, then what is Paul talking about? Paul sees Christ’s current function at the right hand of God as not only present now, but as continuing into the future age which lies beyond the present age. Put in the best possible light for dispensationalism, they should argue that his kingship takes a new form in the millennium. But their peculiar system construct will not allow this. In their view, Christ’s kingdom was presented, rejected, and postponed. He is not now in any way reigning as king. According to their system requirements Paul is simply mistaken.

Fifth, this kingly rule of Christ is related “to the church.” And this church is “His body.” But the church is the very redemptive-historical institution that dispensationalism distinguishes from Israel — and therefore from the millennial kingdom. In fact, in their dispensational structuring of history, the present age is the Church Age, which is to be followed by (and distinguished) from the Kingdom Age (the millennium). Indeed, one of dispensationalism’s sine qua non is the permanent distinction between Israel and the church.

Conclusion to Part One

I hope you can see that in the very first chapter of Ephesians Paul leaves the key in his Ephesiansmobile. He even has the engine running. All that is required is that we put the vehicle in gear and then drive out of the quagmire known as dispensationalism. (Thankfully the Ephesiansmobile is a four wheel drive all-terrain vehicle.) This we will do in our next installment. I will be continuing this “Ephesians Road Out of Dispensationalism” in a future Against-Dispensationalism blog. Stay tuned. Come see us next week!

Dispensationalism and the New Jerusalem

2010-01-26T11:14:00.010-05:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

John F. Walvoord
I consider Dr. John F. Walvoord to have been one of the two leading scholarly representatives of classic dispensationalism in his heyday. He and Charles C. Ryrie were the most prominent advocates of dispensationalism throughout the period of dispensationalism’s hegemony in the populist market (1955–85). Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost never quite made the grade, partly due to the problem regarding his magnum opus: Things to Come ought to have been called Things to Quote. It was merely an inventory of classic dispensational thought with little creative interaction.

I myself was once a dispensationalist, though I got over it. I graduated from a dispensational college with a degree in Biblical Studies (Tennessee Temple College, B.A., 1973). I always found Walvoord and Ryrie to be the most reputable, trustworthy, and compelling authorities to cite in promoting dispensationalism during those halcyon days in which I could study at leisure in the comfort of my home the identity of the (current) Antichrist prediction and formulate new and more compelling dates for the rapture.

In this blog I will be focusing briefly on the new Jerusalem as found in the Book of Revelation. The new Jerusalem imagery is an excellent test case for demonstrating the attempted consistency of dispensationalism (with its literalistic hermeneutic) on the one hand and its embarrassing absurdity on the other. Let me explain.

Walvoord’s Approach to Revelation
In 1966 Walvoord released his commentary on Revelation: The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Moody, 1966). In his Preface he states his general interpretive approach to Revelation, a mistake that casts its shadow over the entire book (and even extends about three inches beyond the book when left in the full sun at about 3:00 on a summer afternoon): “The author has assumed that this book should be interpreted according to the normal rules of hermeneutics rather than as a special case.” Apparently, this is due to Revelation being simply a normal book and without any special features.

Indeed, Walvoord notes of his commentary conclusions: “The result has been a more literal interpretation of prophecy and revelation in general and a clearer picture of end-time events than is frequently held by expositors.”

Thus, Walvoord attempts a literal approach to this remarkable book. We must remember that Revelation presents us with a leading character who not only is of a scarlet hue but also has seven fully-formed heads possessing ten horns. These ten horns serve as effective anchors for ten diadems which otherwise would be swept off his heads by fluvial action as he makes his way up from the sea channels below to the seashore above. There, once in full public view, he presents himself not so much as an aquatic creature but as a compound of animals, two of which normally avoid water sports (the leopard and the lion, Rev 13:2). (The bear is known for frolicking in rivers and streams in search of trout. The tiger is really the only cat that seems to enjoy water. But I digress, for the tiger is not even mentioned in this amalgamated creature.)

The New Jerusalem Problem
Perhaps no better exposé of both the tenacity and absurdity of dispensationalism exists than its attempt at explaining the new Jerusalem. John’s vision of the new Jerusalem absolutely defies literal description. Let us note some of the oddities created by the dispensationalist attempt at explanation of this glorious symbol.

In introducing the new heaven and new earth to which the new Jerusalem descends, Walvoord makes some important geological observations on John’s statement “and there was no more sea” (Rev 21:1c). Walvoord explains: “Most of the earth is now covered with water, but the new earth apparently will have no bodies of water except for the river mentioned in 22:2” (p. 311). This is odd enough in itself: to where does the river flow? Does it make a continual loop around the world, never pooling into a lake, sea, or ocean? Perhaps future dispensational exegetes can explain this geographical oddity. But Walvoord does not. He refuses to go beyond what Scripture actually states — unless something pops into his mind that seems to him to be a good idea.

Indeed, Walvoord compounds the problem when he observes the three dimensions of the city in 21:16. He suggests that it “could be in the form of a pyramid with sides sloping to a peak at the height indicated.” He notes in this regard that “this would have certain advantages, not necessarily because smaller, but because this shape provides a vehicle for the river of life to proceed out of the throne of God, which seems to be at the top, to find its way to the bottom, assuming our experience of gravity will be somewhat normal also in the new earth” (Walvoord, 323). (This is an actual quote from him; I did not make it up.)

I am not certain of this, but I suspect that had Walvoord been pressed he might have argued that this shape would also make an excellent ski slope for the new world. Undoubtedly he could have availed himself of his clearly stated scientific assumptions and then backed this by a compelling Scripture reference too often overlooked in Revelation’s exegetical history. Let me explain.

Referring back to his quote cited above, we may observe that Walvoord is already operating on the geo-physical assumption that “our experience of gravity will be somewhat normal also in the new earth.” And since the water in the new Jerusalem flows down from a height of 1500 miles above the earth the temperature would be quite nippy and ideal for icy conditions.

Doubtless he could have referred to the lubricating properties of surface ice conditions that would facilitate slipperiness thereby increasing ski enjoyment for those who strap boards on their feet to let gravity pull them down to where the drinks are served. After all, with fewer chemical bonds holding them in place, surface molecules in ice tend to vibrate with greater amplitude than those located in the bulk crystalline sub-structure of the ice mass. This obviously leads to an important reality of physics: the Mean Square Displacement of both the hydrogen and oxygen atoms on the icy surface of frozen water reflects the thermal vibration that increases as a natural function of temperature. But Walvoord is strangely silent on these scientific observations (just as he is on the issue of cheese) that would have further elucidated our understanding of the new world.

When we add these geo-physical assumptions to Scripture references elsewhere, the matter is irrefutably solved. Building on these scientific observations Walvoord could easily have pointed out that the top of the pyramid might also be the place to which God refers when he asks Job: “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow?” (Job 38:22). Job was stumped because he lived long before the rapture and obviously could not have entered the storehouses at the peak of the pyramidal new Jerusalem.

Of course, we will have to overlook Walvoord’s views on the maintenance of gravitational mechanics in the new order when we consider the crushing weight of a city that exists as a 1500 mile high, wide, and long entity. Hopefully the new Jerusalem will be built upon a four inch concrete slab thereby preventing it from being driven down into the mud.

This would not be a concern during the millennium, however, for Walvoord notes: “If the new Jerusalem is in existence throughout the millennial reign of Christ, it is possible that it is a satellite city suspended over the earth during the thousand-year reign of Christ as the dwelling place of resurrected and translated saints who also have access to the earthly scene.”

A benefit of this view would obviously be that during the millennium the river flowing down the slope of the pyramidal new Jerusalem could be a primary source of fresh water for the earth below as it warmed upon reentering the warmer low altitudes. As the river flowed down the sides of the new Jerusalem, it would fall into the atmosphere, collect into clouds, and rain down upon the inhabitants below who would be marveling at the 1500 mile long city floating above. We could also back up Walvoord’s theories by providing Scripture support for this possibility: “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (Eze 36:25). This would allow us to take Ezekiel literally, rather than spiritually.

We must, however, recognize Walvoord’s reservation: “The possibility of Jerusalem being a satellite city over the earth during the millennium is not specifically taught in any scripture and at best is an inference based on the implication that it has been in existence prior to its introduction in Revelation 21” (Walvoord, 313). Nevertheless, regarding the question as to when the new Jerusalem is built, Walvoord argues that: “Nothing is revealed concerning this in Scripture unless the expression of John 14:2, ‘I go to prepare a place for you,’ refers to this” (p. 312). Jesus certainly has had sufficient time to build this 1500 hundred mile high, wide, long city, for his ascension was 1,970 years, two months, and three days ago.

Now we must understand that on the literalistic assumptions of dispensationalism, this new Jerusalem is an actual, literal city; it is not a symbol of the church or the people. Walvoord comments: “Of major importance are the facts that John actually saw a city, that this city was inhabited by saints of all ages, and that God Himself was present in it. Until further light is given, it is probably a safe procedure to accept the description of this city as corresponding to the physical characteristics attributed to it” (p. 320).

Walvoord continues, noting that John “itemizes the specific details” so that the symbolic view of the new Jerusalem “is difficult to harmonize with the specific details given which are nowhere explained in other than the literal sense in the Bible” (p. 321). By this he is referring to the many OT references to literal cities built with wall-foundation stones made from jasper, sapphire, emerald, and so forth, which also contain streets of pure gold, and which have gates carved out of single pearls from enormous clams dredged up from the Mediterranean Sea (cp. Rev 21:19–21). (I am writing this at 5:30 am in the morning so I am unable to remember where in the OT these literal cities are; but I am sure you will recognize them once you have had your morning cup of coffee.)

So then, the new Jerusalem is an actual, literal, physical city, complete with a street (21:21; 22:2). We must carefully note, however, that it has only one street: John never mentions “streets” and he does twice mention the street (singular): “the street of the city was pure gold” (21:21) and “in the middle of its street” (22:2). Obviously traffic problems will be solved in the new Jerusalem, proving that Los Angeles (despite it being the “City of Angels”) is not the new Jerusalem. But more significantly, with a city 1500 miles high, elevators will probably be the main means of transport thereby removing the need for a city highway system.

On Walvoord’s (and dispensationalism’s) analysis we must conceive of a whole, fully-functioning, 1500 mile-dimensioned city “that descends from heaven” (p. 321). According to the clear teaching of Scripture, this literal city floats through the sky (Rev 21:2, 10). Obviously it floats with such ease that it does not break up the street, which street apparently rests on nothing but air (though it would be protected from air turbulence by some unknown mechanism as it enters into the lower earth atmosphere).

We surely must surmise that this literal city will have literal pipes, electrical fittings, duct work, tubes, couplings, flanges, traps, strainers, block-and-table, and such hanging beneath it. We know for certain that it has foundation stones (21:14, 19). But these foundation stones are suspended on air — at least throughout the millennium and until it arrives from its near-earth orbit in the eternal state.

Conclusion
Christians: dispensationalism is a bizarre, absurd, and embarrassing theological construct. The fact that so many evangelical Christian believe it is a sad testimony both to Christian naivete and to the dismal lack of solid biblical exegesis in the churches of our land. Actually, the new Jerusalem is a symbol of the redeemed people of God in whom he dwells (Rev 21:3), much like the “temple” in Paul’s writing often represents the people of God and not a physical building (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).

Dispensationalism's Confused Model

2010-01-05T10:32:00.006-05:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

In response to my last blog "Pesky Progressives" a reader named Vance argued that progressive dispensationalism was overturning the Greek influence of later Christianity by returning to "restored creation" hope of the early Church. I gave a brief response to his reply, but I would like to say a little more about this subject in a separate blog article.

In Zondervan’s millennial debate CounterPoints book Three Views of the End of History and Beyond, Craig A. Blaising provides an interesting summation of a theological paradigm shift in the early Church. He outlines the early Church’s developing understanding of the Christian’s eternal destiny. He sees this as affirming his (progressive) dispensationalist premillennialism and as countering the spiritualistic models of amillennialism and postmillennialism. His argument is also welcomed by more traditional dispensationalists. In fact, dispensationalists believe that this represents a key problem in non-premillennial eschatological systems.
But what is this “spiritualistic” problem? And is it a valid objection against non-premillennial eschatologies?

Model Argument Presentation

   Blaising argues that a spiritual model for eternity soon displaced the more biblical new creation model. That is, he argues that the Church eventually began to set aside the concept of a new, physical creation wherein the redeemed will dwell in resurrected bodies for eternity. Instead, he complains, the Church began to “spiritualize” our eternal destiny as being in heaven rather than in a new creation.
       Actually I as a postmillennialist endorse the basics of Blaising’s preferred new creation model for eternity. As Blaising put it: in that model the “scope of eternal life is essentially continuous with that of present earthly life except for the absence of sin and death.” Thus, the new creation models sees a physically restored new heavens and new earth as the eternal destiny of physically resurrected saints.
       Although Blaising associates the arising of the spiritual model of eternity with the birth of amillennialism and postmillennialism, both of these non-premillennial eschatologies now strongly affirm a new creation model. In fact, since 1992 I have argued for this approach in my exposition and defense of postmillennialism (see the latest version of Shall Have Dominionailable at NiceneCouncil.com). Interestingly, even in the CounterPoint debate book in which Blaising wrote, amillennialist Robert Strimple affirmed this view.
       But Strimple is not promoting a new innovation within amillennialism, for amillennialist Anthony Hoekema provided a thorough-going presentation of the new creation model in his 1979 book, Bible and the Futureat is more, the new covenant model appeared in the writings of anti-premillennialist John Calvin in the 1500s. Thus, dispensationalism’s alleged development of the new creation model appears almost 500 hundred years after Calvin!

Model Argument Error
       Interestingly, Blaising supports his argument for the new creation model from several passages of Scripture: “Following the language of Isaiah 24, 65 and 66, of Revelation 21, and of Romans 8, the new creation model expects the earth and the cosmic order to be renewed and made everlasting through the same creating power that grants immortal and resurrection life to the saints.” But this is not helpful to h is defense of dispensationalism at all.
       Blaising himself later states regarding one of his foundational passages for the “renewed” and “everlasting” new creation order (Isaiah 65): “curiously death still remains a feature in that world order (Isa. 65:20).” This curiosity is explained by a proper understanding of Revelation 21:1—22:5 (another of Blaising’s passages) in its original context. Immediatelyafter the new creation / Jerusalem appears and is explained in Revelation 21:1 — 22:5, we read: “‘These words are faithful and true’; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place. . . . And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near’” (Rev. 22:6, 10; emphasis mine). Thus, the new creation of which Isaiah and John are speaking represent a present reality in Christ. And Paul agrees with the new creation presence (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15. Cp. Luke 4:16-21; Eph. 2:10; 2:12-16; 4:24).
       Thus, surprisingly two of Blaising’s foundational passages for demonstrating a future physical new creation actually apply to a present spiritual new creation! Blaising’s premillennial presentation is self-refuting. These two passages present the coming of the new heavens / earth / Jerusalem in the permanent establishing of Christianity. This publically and finally occurs in God’s judgment on Israel when he destroyed the old covenant order in A.D. 70. Consequently, the new creation order began legally and spiritually(!) under Christ and his Apostles; it was confirmed publicly and dramatically in A.D. 70 by removing the typological, old covenant order (which was “ready to vanish away,” Heb. 8:13) so that the final new covenant order could be firmly established (Heb. 12:22-28). The “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21; Rev. 7:14) against the first century Temple (Matt. 23:38 — 24:3, 15; Rev. 11:1-2) in Judea (Matt. 24:16; Rev. 11:8) was to occur in “this generation” (24:34; cp. Rev. 1:1, 2).
       The postmillennial eschatological schema involves gradualistic development of the kingdom of God in history. This is opposed to the premillennial catastrophism necessary to impose a bureaucratic, political, temple-based kingdom on a recalcitrant world at the battle of Armageddon. The seed principles of the new order are legally established in Christ’s redemptive work (A.D. 30) and publicly demonstrated in Christ’s judgment of Israel (A.D. 70). The outworking of the kingdom / new covenant / new creation / millennial principle begins progressing in an upward-moving, linear fashion by unfolding, incremental development through history. Ultimately this upward progress will be superseded by final perfection at the Second Advent, which will establish the consummate, eternal new creation order. Thus, Blaising rightly desires “a holistic hope in which the millennium forms one part.” Unfortunately, he looks for the wrong type of millennium (Zionistic politicism) produced by the wrong method (catastrophic imposition).
       Nevertheless, the fact of a future, physical new creation remains. It is rooted in other texts of Scripture (such as 2 Peter 3) and in the theological implications of redemptive realities (a physical resurrection suggests a physical environment in which the resurrected will dwell).

Pesky Progressives

2009-12-29T07:40:00.008-05:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Dispensationalism is undergoing a gradual, evolutionary change of mammoth proportions. Since the late 1980s many dispensational scholars have been tinkering with the system trying to make it more palatable to evangelical theologians — as well as more biblical. They are doing a pretty good job on both accounts. Their new system is called "progressive dispensationalism." But their work is not done. And it will not be done until they remove the word "dispensationalism" from their title. In other words, their work will not be complete until they no longer classify themselves as dispensationalists. I think that day is coming. (I will not, however, predict the day nor the hour lest I become like unto them.)

You can hear the alarm being sounded in the more popular, more traditional dispensational camp. That is, you can hear it from those few traditional dispensationalists who are somewhat studious and alert. The average dispensationalist-in-the-pew is too busy trying to identify the Antichrist, predict the date of the Rapture, and create a better system for full-color, fold-out charts. (I was just kidding about the last point; as strong advocates of the tri-partite view of man they are resolutely committed to tri-fold charts.)

In the 1990s a number of books attacking progressive dispensationalism were published by the old guard. And several significant debate books were generated out of their intermural debate. One of these debate books was: Herbert W. Bateman, ed., Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999). In this work we see the enormous changes being effected on the theological sub-structure of dispensationalism. (The more popular brand of dispensationalism that dominates the market does not actually have what we would call a "theological sub-structure." Basically their simple motto is: "I believe therefore it am").

To get a feel for the radical nature of the changes being effected, we may quote a brief section of this book. I will cite a couple of paragraphs by Stanley D. Toussaint, an older school dispensationalist. Toussaint writes on p. 227:

"In his classic work Dispensationalism Today, Ryrie sets forth a threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism — a distinction between Israel and the church, a literal hermeneutic, and the glory of God as His purpose on earth. Of these three, undoubtedly the most important is the distinction between Israel and the church. Ryrie calls this ‘the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist.’ He calls it the ‘essence of dispensationalism.’ He goes so far as to say, ‘The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference between dispensationalism and other doctrinal viewpoints. Indeed, ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism.’ All dispensationalists would agree that these statements are true. However, the degree of the difference has been and still is a matter of debate. If the church and Israel become so blurred in dispensationalism that there is no separation between them, dispensationalism will become as extinct as the pitied dodo bird."

As you can see: the foundational touchstone of dispensationalism is being reformulated. And "if the foundations be destroyed, what will the populist do?"

Since dispensationalism is a theological system, we can expect that reworking the foundations will impact the rest of their theology. And such is certainly the case. Toussaint goes on to note on p. 228:

"Progressive dispensationalism has taken a new tack. It still makes something of a difference between Israel and the church, but that distinction is not nearly as sharp. Those who hold to this position believe that the promised kingdom has already begun; progressive dispensationalists assert that the Old Testament covenants and promises have had a beginning, a partial fulfillment in the church, but will have their ultimate fulfillment in the Millennium and eternity. Their view of the kingdom is similar to Ladd’s; that is, progressive dispensationalists believe that the kingdom was present when Christ ministered on earth but His reign was not initiated until His ascension. At that time He took His seat on the throne of David. Thus, the kingdom has been inaugurated but will come in fullness only in the millennium and eternity."

These are enormously significant alterations occurring in this popular eschatological system. Dispensationalism is in serious trouble. It is not simply changing, it is becoming its opposite. But again: they are not there yet, though the prospects look good for the final demise of dispensationalism. Of course, if the average dispensationalist ever gets wind of what their theologians are doing, they will simply write it off as another one of the signs of the times. And they will return to the mountain top with their friends to eagerly wait.

Literalism and the Rejection of Messiah

2009-12-22T10:13:00.002-05:00

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

The Error of Dispensational Literalism

The two cornerstones of dispensationalism are: (1) Israel and the Church must be kept distinct as two separate peoples of God throughout all eternity. (2) Scripture must be interpreted literalistically unless it would lead to absurdity. Both of these foundational premises are absolutely erroneous. In this blog I will briefly demonstrate the tragedy of literalism for both first century Israel and present-day dispensationalism.

Dispensationalists proudly point out that first century Jewish rabbis interpreted the Old Testament literalistically. In fact, this claim is often made at the beginning of their argument for literalism in an effort to establish the historical nature of their hermeneutic. For instance, Dallas Seminary’s J. Dwight Pentecost asserts: "The prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly the literal method of interpretation" (Things to Come, 17). Popular and prolific dispensational author Malcolm Ollie Couch, Jr. agrees: "Jewish orthodoxy generally interpreted the Old Testament literally" (Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, 148).

Unfortunately, literalism was not only a tragedy for the Jews, but is an embarrassment to their best friends, the dispensationalists. (And through dispensationalism’s behemoth presence in American Christian circles, an embarrassment to evangelical theology.) Let us see how this is so.

The Tragedy of Jewish Literalism

The tragedy of literalism for Israel was perhaps the key human component leading the nation to reject their own prophesied Messiah. Evangelical theologian Stanley J. Grenz observes "it was their expectations of a literal earthly kingdom and political ruler that caused many Jews to fail to recognize Jesus as their Messiah at his first coming" (The Millennial Maze, 79). Interestingly, we see this point made throughout John’s Gospel. Indeed, it seems almost as if his Gospel was designed to demonstrate this affliction.

John’s Gospel opens early-on with a foreboding lament: "He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him" (John 1:11). And this was despite the fact that Jesus was "the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it" (John 1:4b–5). Then throughout his Gospel John repeatedly points out why this happened: it was due to the naive literalism of the majority of first-century Jews.

Jesus even has to rebuke a religious leader in Israel for this nonsense. In John 2 Jesus is at the Temple during Passover where he drives the moneychangers out of the Temple court. The temple authorities confront him, asking: "What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things" (John 2:18). John records Jesus’ response and the Jewish confusion based on their literalistic interpretation of it: "Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews therefore said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’" (John 2:19–20). John exposes their error by properly interpreting Jesus’ answer: "But He was speaking of the temple of His body" (John 2:21).

Just five verses later John records Jesus’ interaction with "a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews" (John 3:1). Nicodemus informs Jesus that he recognizes the significance of Jesus’ miracles. Then we read: "Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?’ (John 3:3–4). He totally misses Jesus’ teaching on being "born again." Here is a ruler of the Jews thinking as a dispensationalist: apparently for him "truly, truly" meant "literally, literally."

But how does Jesus respond? With a sharp rebuke and a correction to his literalism. "Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again. . . .’" ‘Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?’ . . . If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:5–7, 10, 12). Ouch! Here is an educated Pharisee, a "ruler of the Jews" being questioned as to his intelligence because of his literalistic approach.

Then in the next chapter we find another encounter of Jesus. This time with the Samaritan woman at the well. In his interaction with her we discover her dullness of understanding which is also rooted in simplistic literalism.

"Jesus answered and said to her, ‘If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, "Give Me a drink," you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.’ She said to Him, ‘Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?’ Jesus answered and said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life. The woman said to Him, ‘Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty, nor come all the way here to draw’" (John 4:10–15).

If Jesus teaches about his providing "living water" had prompted his hearers to go about looking for ladles, they would be sorely disappointed. She missed his spiritual instruction because of her literalistic assumption.

But this is not all, for we read further: "In the meanwhile the disciples were requesting Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, eat.’ But He said to them, ‘I have food to eat that you do not know about.’ The disciples therefore were saying to one another, ‘No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work. Do you not say, "There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest"? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. Already he who reaps is receiving wages, and is gathering fruit for life eternal; that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this case the saying is true, "One sows, and another reaps." I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor’" (John 4:31–38).

Had Jesus not constrained them they would have probably run off to begin looking for a sickle to help him harvest some wheat while the Samaritan woman went off looking for a longer ladle. No wonder people back then were such hard workers. They took everything so literally. (By saying they "took" everything literally, I do not mean they manually lifted everything up and hauled it off to another geographical destination. You can’t have everything: where would you put it?).
Later Jesus really gets into trouble and offended a crowd of literalistic Jews. He does so after miraculously feeding 5000 of them (John 6:1–14, 24–26). We see literalism raising its dense head once again when the Jews finally find him shortly thereafter:

"‘Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread out of heaven to eat."’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.’ They said therefore to Him, ‘Lord, evermore give us this bread.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.’ (John 6:31– 35). The story continues:

"‘I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.’ The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever’" (John 6:51– 58).

And you know what happens next (John has already established the pattern for you!): "Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this said, ‘This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?’ But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, ‘Does this cause you to stumble?’ . . . As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore" (John 6:60–61, 66).

All of this interpretive stumbling does not end here! It continues on relentlessly throughout John’s record. In John 8:21–22 we read: "He said therefore again to them, ‘I go away, and you shall seek Me, and shall die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come. Therefore the Jews were saying, ‘Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, "Where I am going, you cannot come"?’" (John 8:21–22).

Then a few verses later we read of Jesus’ preaching: "‘You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ They answered Him, ‘We are Abraham's offspring, and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, "You shall become free"?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed" (John 8:32–36). They were in danger of remaining in slavery to sin because they could not understand Jesus’ warning about that spiritual slavery, partly due to their literalism.

Then just a few more verses afterwards we see the same problem arising again: "‘Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.’ The Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, "If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste of death." Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?’" (John 8:51–53).

Just a few verse later in the following context (beginning in John 9:1) Jesus heals a blind man. Then he causes confusion by speaking of spiritual blindness to the dispensationalist Pharisees. (We know they were dispensationalists because they not only were literalists but they also held to the distinction between the Church and Israel — as well as believing in a special future for Israel wherein they would rule the world.) "And Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind.’ Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, ‘We are not blind too, are we?’" (John 9:39–40). They had confronted him regarding his healing of the blind man. So when Jesus calls them "blind," they literalistically assume he is speaking of physical blindness.

Jesus’ own closest associates were Jewish, and therefore afflicted with literalism. We see this in the episode of the raising of Lazarus: "This He said, and after that He said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awaken him out of sleep.’ The disciples therefore said to Him, ‘Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.’" But once again, John helps us out by adding: "Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then Jesus therefore said to them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead’" (John 11:11–14).

Even Peter, the leading disciple and one of the inner circle of three (with James and John, cf. Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33), was confused by his cultural literalism: Jesus said: "‘Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You shall seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, I now say to you also, "Where I am going, you cannot come."’ . . . Simon Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, where are You going?’ Jesus answered, ‘Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you shall follow later.’ Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, why can I not follow You right now?’" (John 13:33, 36–37).

Literalism is such a bad problem among the Jews that Jesus has to interact with Pilate to discover whether Pilate had directly heard him speak on the kingdom of heaven, or whether he got all of his information from the Jews. As we can tell from the preceding narrative in John’s Gospel, this was a great concern for Jesus since the Jews tended to misconstrue his teaching by subjecting it to a literalistic analysis. Thus we read:

"Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus, and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’ Pilate therefore said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice’" (John 18:33-37).

Thus, once Jesus discounts any Jewish, literalistic interpretation of his kingdom sayings. He informs Pilate he is indeed a "king." But he defines his kingdom as a spiritual kingdom not of this world, a kingdom related to the proclamation of truth and uninterested in armies and a police force. His kingdom is spiritual, not literal . And because of his answer we read: "Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, ‘I find no guilt in Him’" (John 18:38). He well knew, as did the Jews, that "everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar" (John 19:12). Yet as Caesar’s appointed procurator Pilate stated: "I find no guilt in Him."

Conclusion

In all of this we see the dangers of a naive literalism. It caused Jesus’ embarrassing rebuke of a high-ranking Jewish leader (Nicodemus). It caused many would-be disciples to turn away from him. It caused his disciples to be confused. It caused the Jews to reject Jesus as Messiah. It even caused them to demand his crucifixion (cp. Matt 27:29, 37).

Furthermore, the literalistic hermeneutic eventually created a whole, new theological movement in history 1800 years after Christ: dispensationalism was founded in 1830. This movement has created its own rapturistic theological system. It has also caused embarrassment to the broader evangelical faith by its naive theology, with all of its calls for the end, demands for preferential treatment for Jews, and for almost the entire herd of televangelists.

In addition to all of this, dispensational literalism can be personally dangerous. And you need to take this very seriously. Please allow me to just give one piece of advice to you for your own safety in ministry. If you ever have a distraught dispensationalist come to you for counsel and asking: "May I talk to you about my problem with a violent temper?," never ever, under any circumstances whatsoever respond: "Shoot."

The “Secret” Rapture Revisited

2009-10-06T14:20:00.008-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

In response to a previous blog titled "The Loud Verse and the Secret Rapture," I received the following anonymous response:

"Because, you deceiver, no-one ever called it a ‘Secret Rapture’ EXCEPT anti-dispensationalists like yourself. You have created a straw man. knocked it down and proved nothing."

I would use this response to point out the emotional nature of commitment to dispensationalism. This anonymous response was not an intellectual challenge to my blog, but an emotional outburst against it. He does not assert that I am argumentatively mistaken, but rather charges that I am morally a "deceiver."

What is worse, my respondent's objection is fallacious. Indeed, it is mistaken in its foundational, over-riding, singular point! The writer claims: (1) "no-one ever called it a ‘Secret Rapture’ EXCEPT anti-dispensationalists," and because of this alleged fact (2) "you have created a straw man."

Please consider the following in reply:

Dispensationalists employ the term "secret" for the Rapture

The largest selling book of the 1970s, and one of the largest selling Christian books of all times, was Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. In the 1970s it sold over 9 million copies. And though quite dated now, it is still on the market and has sold over 28 million copies worldwide. As a consequence, it has influenced millions of Christians.

In this book dispensationalist mega-bestseller Hal Lindsey states on pages 142–43:

"Another reason why we support the idea that the Rapture and the second coming are separate events is that the second coming is said to be visible to the whole earth (Revelation 1:7). However, in the Rapture, only the Christians see Him — it’s a mystery, a secret. When the living believers are taken out, the world is going to be mystified."

Thus, one of the most influential dispensational authors uses the term, despite the anonymous writer declaring that "no-one" ever called it a secret rapture.

Another best-selling dispensationalist who uses the term is Dave Hunt. In his book Whatever Happened to Heaven? he writes on page 303:

"The rapture as expressed in 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to be a private event involving the church only, and unseen and unknown to the world. . . . The actual event seems to be a secret experience only by the church."

Major theologian Robert H. Gundry wrote The Church and the Tribulation, in which he classifies himself as a "dispensationalist" (p. 28). He is also called a dispensationalist in Thomas Ice and Tim Demy’s book, When the Trumpet Sounds: "Gundry, who is not only premillennial but also dispensational..." (p. 239). While discussing 1 Thess 4:16–17, Gundry refers to the secret rapture in his book: "The ‘shout,’ ‘voice,’ and ‘trumpet’ have led some posttribulationists to mock at a secret, pretribulational rapture..." (p. 104).

Dispensationalism requires that the Rapture be "secret."

We also find that the very theological construct of the Rapture entails that it be "secret." According to the dictionary, the first meaning of "secret" is: "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" (Dictionary.com). The second listed meaning there is: "kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged." This is precisely how the Rapture must be characterized. Note the following.

Consider major dispensationalist theologian Charles L. Feinberg. In his book, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, p. 287 he distinguishes the Rapture from the Second Coming by noting: "The coming of the Lord Jesus for His own will not be seen by the world, whereas His visible appearing will be seen by all when He comes in power and great glory with His holy angles" (emph. mine). By definition, this Rapture coming is secret, for it "will not be seen by the world." It is "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)."

Another important dispensational theologian is Paul D. Feinberg. He is contributor to the debate book by Gleason Archer, et al., The Rapture: Pre–, Mid–, or Post–tribulational?). In that book he, too, distinguishes the Second Advent from the Rapture similarly: "The return of Christ is preceded by great upheaval, distress, and signs that alert one to its occurrence. Neither the trial nor the signs are to be found in the Rapture text..." (p. 157–58; emph. mine). Thus, it is "secret" as far as the world is concerned for it is "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)."

Perhaps the most popular and influential dispensationalist today is Tim LaHaye. In his Prophecy Study Bible (at 1 Thess. 4:13) he provides a chart of "Comparisons between the Rapture and the Glorious Appearance." In that chart, item five is: At the Rapture "Only His own see Him"; whereas in the "Glorious Appearance" (the Second Advent) "Every eye will see Him." Thus, a major distinction between the Rapture and the Second Advent is that the Rapture is not seen by those who are not believers. Is this, then, not "secret"? Is this not "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)?"

Norm Geisler in his Systematic Theology: Church, Last Things presents a similar chart to LaHaye, where he contrasts the "Rapture" and the "Second Coming" (p. 623): Under the "Rapture" column we read: "only believers see him." Under the "Second Coming" column we read: "all people see him."

John Walvoord, The Church in Prophecy, speaks of the Rapture as a secret event, though without using the express term:

"It is probable, however, that just as atmospheric clouds received the Lord when He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9) and as He will come in the ‘clouds of heaven’ at His return to the earth, so here also at the rapture the church will be enveloped by the atmospheric heavens and thus be taken out of sight of men on earth. There is no indication, however, that residents of earth will be able to see the church thus rapture."

But now, if the residents of earth do not see it, is it not — by definition — "secret"? Is it not "done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others" ("secret," Dictionary.com)?

However, on p. 136 Walvoord expressly allows the concept:

"The revelation indicates that the event [the Rapture] will take place in a moment and apparently that the earth and its inhabitants are left undisturbed. The Scripture does not use the term ‘secret rapture,’ and there is no sure evidence what the world will see and hear at the time of rapture. On the other hand, the Scriptures do not give any indication that the rapture will be subject to observation by the world as a whole."

So then, though "the Scripture does not use the term ‘secret,’" he argues for its secrecy, nevertheless. After all, he declares "there is no sure evidence what the world will see and hear." And he notes "on the other hand, the Scriptures do not give any indication that the rapture will be subject to observation by the world as a whole." He has worked his way around the "problem" that the adjective "secret" is not applied to the rapture in Scripture by declaring that it is, nonetheless, secret!

Then two paragraphs later Walvoord writes: "A survey of the major Scriptures dealing with the second coming reveal an entirely different picture than the rapture. In Matthew 24, it is indicated that the second coming of Christ will fill the heavens with glory and will be ‘as lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west....' In contrast to the rapture, the second coming will be a visible event which both saved and unsaved will see" (pp. 136–37; emph. mine).

Conclusion

Like it or not, dispensationalism requires a "secret" rapture. And dispensationalists can and do use the term. I created no straw man; nor did I deceive anyone. I do admit, however, to not having much emotion about the whole matter.

A Response to Dave

2009-09-29T16:00:00.005-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Dave:

Thank you for reading and interacting with my blog, "I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist." I would like to respond to you, since you took the time to reply.

You are correct that the reading of the Acts 2 passage was a catalyst in my thinking; it was, not an end all. It led to my further research, which led me out of dispensationalism.

Upon your second reading of my original blog, you realized that I do distinguish the more scholarly men, such as Ryrie and Walvoord, from the popular writers, such as Lindsey and LaHaye. Generally speaking, Ryrie and Walvoord are less inclined to populist extravagance and date-setting. However, they are not entirely untouched by the charge of "naivete" and even to date-setting.

You state: "I think a survey of responsible dispensational scholars would reveal that very few of them would engage in anything approximating date-setting." I find interesting your statement that "very few" of them would do so. As I will show, though they tend not to be as overt as the populists, they still have that temptation.

You go on to state: "However, it is extremely unfortunate that some, even quite a few, have made far too many extreme statements correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy." But correlating "current events with fullfilment of prophecy" even occurs in Ryrie and Walvoord, for instance.

For example, consider Walvoord’s best-seller: Armageddon, Oil, and Terror: What the Bible Says about the Future. He was viewing the (then) current oil crisis as an indicator of "Armageddon." You will never find even a progressive dispensationalist writing such a book.

In his Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (p. 258–59) Walvoord states: "The fact that Israel is already back in the land, that a world movement toward world government is also current, and that there is already a world religious movement combine to indicate that the time of fulfillment of end-time events may not be distant." This is certainly doing what you lament: "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy."

On p. 400 Walvoord even provides a table of "Predicted Events Relating to the Nations." #1 is "United Nations organized as first step toward world government in 1946." #6 is "Red China becomes a military power." #8 is "The Arab oil embargo in 1973 results in world recognition of the power of wealth and energy in the Middle East." He mixes these "predicted events" right in with #20 "Second coming of Christ occurs accompanied by the armies from heaven." So the establishment of the UN, the military prowess of Red China, and the 1973 Arab oil embargo are "predicted events" in biblical prophecy? How is that for "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"?

On p. 422 he lists a table of "Predicted Events Relating to the Church." This includes "2. The rise of Communism and atheism as major opponents of Christianity. 3. The ecumenical movement promoting a world church organization in 1948." He mixes this in with "6. The Rapture of the church" and "12. Second coming of Christ occurs...." So, the establishment of the ecumenical movement in 1948 is a "predicted event"? Is this not "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"?

And consider Ryrie’s book The Living End. On p. 45 he writes of Revelation 9: "John’s description sounds very much like some kind of war machine or UFO.... Until someone comes up with a satisfactory answer to the UFO question, this possibility should not be ruled out." This is absolutely bizarre.

In that same book on page 56 he writes of Ezekiel 38: "Suddenly Zionism blossomed, and with the blessing of the United Nations the Jewish State of Israel was born in 1948, and since then the Jewish people have been returning in unprecedented numbers.... Ezekiel’s prophecy could not have been fulfilled fifty years ago. But today it can, and soon it will." He clearly declares that Ezekiel's prophecy will "soon" be fulfilled. This is date-setting. He does not even qualify it with "it seems that" or "it may."

Chapter 10 of The Living End is titled: "No Tricentennial for the U.S.A." On pages 128 and 129 we read: "But even if the messages of the prophets do not alert you, before finally dismissing them, take a good look again at current events.... How do you account for these unusual events converging in our present day? Jesus said: ‘Even so when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.’ (Matthew 24:33 NIV)." (Emphasis KLG) How is that for "correlating current events with fulfillment of prophecy"? And date-setting? These "current events" (events actually happening now) indciate "it is near, right at the door."

You state that "the Scriptures indicate that there is only one regathering of Israel into the land." However, the verses you would use to support such a view speak of their return in faith. Whereas, modern Israel is close to being an atheistic nation, and is at the very least non-Christian.

Dispensationalists too easily succumb to naivete in interpretation and date-setting in prophetic pronouncements. This even occurs with noted, scholarly dispensationalists such as Ryrie and Walvoord, though with a little more moderation.

I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist (Revisited 2009)

2009-09-24T15:49:00.002-04:00

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

I am the Director of NiceneCouncil.com, which produces and distributes much evangelical and Reformed theological material. One of our main ministries is our witness against the errors in dispensationalism and the naivete of dispensationalists. Dispensationalism has absolutely saturated the American evangelical mind and has, conversely, diluted the integrity of the Christian witness to our culture and the world. Hence we have developed an important video documentary The Late Great Planet Church (see our on-line store at: NiceneCouncil.com). And also this very blogspot: AgainstDispenationalism.com. We are serious in our anti-dispensationalism.

In that you are a visitor to this blogspot, perhaps a personal testimony from me would be of interest. (If you are not a visitor, how in the world are you reading this blog? Nobody actually lives here. I rest my case.) Sometimes it is helpful to read the testimony of others, especially regarding their current theological standing and its historic development. This might be especially interesting in light of my and NiceneCouncil.com’s strong position against dispensationalism.

Though dispensationalists are our brothers in Christ.... And though they affirm the same Scriptures that we do, and with equal conviction.... We must recognize this “in house” squabble as being significant. In fact, we feel that dispensationalism is embarrassing the evangelical Christian faith (with its naivete and its frequent calls for the End). We believe our brothers need to be challenged to look more carefully at Scripture in order to learn where they have fumbled.

In my next blog I will write a letter to dispensationalists, challenging them to reconsider their foundations. In this one I will provide my testimony regarding my dispensational background, showing them my previous involvement in the system and my dispensationalist credentials.

My Early Dispensational Experience

I once was a dispensationalist. I have the spiritual experience and the academic credentials of a certified dispensationalist. But you might say that I raptured out of the system. Though I was a teenage dispensationalist I am now a mature covenantalist. In other words, I was once a dispensationalist but I got over it. Leaving dispensationalism — where virtually all of my family resided — was emotionally difficult. But in the final analysis it was a matter of “thus saith the Lord.” Leaving dispensationalism was like being born-again again. The impact on my spiritual life and development was just that great.

As a sixteen year-old teenager I was converted to Christ under a dispensational youth ministry at a Bible camp at Florida Bible College in Boca Raton, Florida (1966). I was sent there by my uncle, Rev. John S. Lanham, a dispensational pastor. My uncle was generously stepping in to help my sister and me through our parents divorce (my uncle was my mother’s brother). While at that youth camp, and on the very first night, I heard the gospel preached from Ephesians 2:8–9. Right then and there God wonderfully opened my heart to his gospel. I knew that I now had eternal life. Though I am now Reformed, I must confess that God used an altar call to save me!

Naturally I returned home with great enthusiasm for the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I knew the truth and the truth had set me free. I immediately began attending my uncle’s dispensational church in Chattanooga, Tennessee (Calvary Bible Church). There I was schooled in the Scofield Reference Bible. In his preaching my uncle would often say: “If you have a good Bible, turn to page so-and-so for our next text.” My hope was built on nothing less / than Scofield’s notes and Moody Press. I was so eager to learn that within two years I soon was teaching a youth Sunday school class.

While there I developed a great facility with the church’s dispensational charts and graphs, and put them to good use. Furthermore, I had a dispensational bad of honor: a well-marked Scofield Reference Bible. None of that newfangled New Scofield Reference Bible stuff for me: I had the old Bible. If it was good enough for Scofield, it was good enough for me.

As I was studying Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga (1969–70), I began attending a campus ministry conducted by Kay Arthur, who is now well-known for her Precepts Ministries International. Kay happened also to be our Youth Director at Calvary Bible Church. She was a dynamic and effective teacher; I was an excited and committed Christian eager to learn.

(As an interesting aside, I also daily played table tennis with a UTC classmate, Timothy George. He has since demonstrated himself to be a remarkable Reformed scholar: He has Th.D. from Harvard University and has been the dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University since 1988. He is the author of Theology of the Reformers and other scholarly works. I can’t remember if I could beat him at table tennis. I do remember he was quite good at it, though. And I used to be also, as a member of the Junior United States Table Tennis Association. But I digress.)

During my time at UTC Jack and Kay Arthur established a dispensational youth ranch in Chattanooga. It was known initially as Outreach Youth Ranch, but soon became Reachout Youth Ranch (due to a conflict of names with another local ministry). My future wife (Melissa) and I greatly enjoyed Kay’s challenging instruction. This youth ministry quickly evolved into Precepts Ministry (1970), which has become an international Bible study ministry of dispensational convictions taught by Kay Arthur. The next year Melissa and I married (July 31, 1971). We were glad the Rapture was delayed a little while.

My Academic Dispensational Training

As I developed spiritually and grew in my understanding biblically, I experienced an increasingly strong desire to learn the Bible better so that I might teach it more accurately. You might say that I wanted to “rightly divide the word of truth” — into the proper dispensations, of course. So I transferred from UTC’s Engineering program to Tennessee Temple College, a few blocks away from UTC in downtown Chattanooga. There I majored in “Biblical Studies.” I like to tell people that when I took a calculus class at UTC, the Lord called me to ministry. (Don’t tell my daughter-in-law, Sara, who teaches calculus in advanced math classes in high school! She graduated from Covenant College where they teach that sort of thing.)

While at Temple my dispensational understanding was fleshed out and given a more thorough theological foundation and super-structure. I studied under some very effective Bible teachers, such as Dr. Wymal Porter and Dr. Dennis Wisdom. In fact, I became friends with Dr. Wisdom. I even took him to visit another dispensational teacher friend of mine outside of the Temple community. He wanted to discuss with this gentlemen the question of whether the “bride of Christ” is to be distinguished from the larger body of Christians, like Eve was drawn out of a part of the body of Adam.

This gentlemen that Dr. Wisdom and I visited taught that the “bride of Christ” was a special designation for a smaller realm of “strongly committed” Christians in the Church. He taught that God distinguished these faithful Christians from those merely born-again and largely uncommitted, carnal Christians. This friend worked with me at my uncle’s dispensationalist bookstore, Lanham’s Bible Bookshop on Brainerd Road in Chattanooga. Dr. Wisdom soundly refuted him, arguing that the whole born-again community of believers makes up the bride of Christ. I was relieved; I was on the inside.

Returning now to my college experience: Despite my great appreciation for the teaching skills of Dr. Wisdom, I remember that in the course on “Premillennialism” he made the (oft heard) claim: “You will not find a liberal premillennialist, though you will find many liberal amillennialists.” (I believe this derived from our course textbook by Ryrie: The Basis of the Premillennial Faith.) I don’t know what possessed me, but I asked him in class: “But don’t we find a lot of premillennial cults, like Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses?” Perhaps the Greek courses and the hermeneutics study I was receiving at Temple was already beginning to expose flaws in the system. However, at that time I wrote this off as a mere problem I was having with indigestion.

In May of 1973 I received my B.A. degree in “Biblical Studies” at Tennessee Temple College (cum laude, nonetheless; I think this was “with praise” that I was leaving). Now I was schooled in the Bible and theology and held a degree in the field. I was increasingly eager to enter into some full-time Christian teaching — perhaps teaching at a college or seminary. So I enrolled at a dispensationalist, Grace Brethren school: Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana (August 1973). While there I received further and deeper instruction in dispensationalism at the graduate level (I was there from 1973–75).

But in a course on soteriology, I began to research the question regarding “Lordship salvation.” In my research I stumbled on a powerful passage relating Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” (Acts 2:29–30).

It suddenly and powerfully struck me: Peter was declaring that Christ was raised up to sit on David’s throne at his resurrection! If that were true, then we were currently in the kingdom of Christ. And if that were true, then dispensationalism was mistaken. What was I to do? My system was falling down around me, even as I studied it at a deeper, graduate level.

My Ultimate Dispensational “Rapture”

In that I had Calvinistic convictions (I was a member of the “Calvinist Underground” at Tennessee Temple College), I thought I should read something by a Reformed scholar. I looked through the Grace Seminary library (where my wife was a librarian) and found O. T. Allis’s masterful work Prophecy and the Church. That was it. He destroyed my dispensationalism. I was now a Christian without a theological home.

As a result of this, three Grace Seminary friends of mine and I drove all night to get to Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. We attended a few classes, talked with the Administrator, and liked what we saw. Soon thereafter all three of us raptured out of Grace Seminary and enrolled at Reformed. While studying at RTS we were swept away by our new theological hero, Greg L. Bahnsen.

I graduated from RTS with a Master of Divinity degree in 1977 and entered the pastorate just three months later. And the rest, you might say, is history. I was now totally disenchanted with dispensationalism and was busy extricating my mind from all of its constructs (which took some time). I was well on the way to a consistently Reformed theology. Dispensationalism was now anathema.

My Seeking Dispensational Testimonies

So that is my story, and I’m sticking to it. What is your testimony regarding dispensationalism? I would love to hear a paragraph or two testimonial. What brought you out of the system?

And if you have some friends who have converted out of the system, please have them come to our blog site and give their testimonies. We won’t tell anyone. :)

The Man of Lawlessness

2009-08-18T10:39:00.008-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

Len, a reader of my last blog ("The Problem of Antichrist") noted: "One area that wasn't mentioned in your article (unless I missed it) was 2 Thessalonians 2 where Paul talks about the "falling away" and the "lawless one." This seems to be one of the first places that dispensationalists go to support their argument for the anti-Christ and all that goes with his rise to power."

Introductory Comments

He is correct. Dispensationalists have a handful of favorite passages to color in their gloom-and-doom with appropriately dark hues. And this is one of them. Unfortunately for them, scholars note this passage's exceptional difficulty. Augustine writes regarding a certain portion of the passage: "I confess that I am entirely ignorant of what he means to say." Renowned Greek linguist and Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson despairs of the task of interpreting this passage because it is "in such vague form that we can hardly clear it up." Not only so, but once again the term "antichrist" does not occur in this important (for dispensationalism) antichrist passage.

As is too often the case, an exceedingly difficult prophecy becomes a key text for dispensationalism. Note the following comments by dispensationalists.

• Constable observes that "this section of verses contain truths found nowhere else in the Bible. It is key to understanding future events and it is central to this epistle."
• According to Walvoord, the man of lawlessness revealed here is "the key to the whole program of the Day of the Lord."
• Of 2 Thessalonians 2 Chafer notes: "though but one passage is found bearing upon the restraining work of the Holy Spirit, the scope of the issues involved is such as to command the utmost consideration."
• Ryrie and Feinberg employ 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as one of the few passages used "to clinch the argument" for the rebuilding of the temple.

And once we read the passage carefully, we see that it is not referring to the distantly future second coming, but the soon-coming AD 70 event. Consider the following.

Expository Observations

Verses 1–2. Paul's reference "concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him" (2Th 2:1) refers to the AD 70 judgment on the Jews — the very judgment Christ emphasizes in the first portion of his Olivet Discourse (which strongly influences this passage), John focuses on in the Book of Revelation, and other writers consider in several other Scriptural passages.

Though Paul speaks of the second advent just a few verses before (1:10), he is not dealing with that issue here. In 2 Thess. 1:10 he even employs a different word for the coming of Christ (elthe) from what he uses in 2:1 (parousia). In chapter 1 the second advent brings "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (1:9); here this coming results in temporal "destruction" (2:8). There the second advent includes "his mighty angels" (1:7); here the temporal judgment mentions nothing about these angels (2:1–12). Thus, the second advent provides an eternal resolution to their suffering; the AD 70 Day of the Lord affords temporal resolution (cf. Rev 6:10).

Furthermore, the "gathering together to Him" Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 seems to reflect Matthew 24:31. The word translated "gather together" here is episunagoge . Its cognate verb form is found in Matthew 24:31, where Christ ties the gathering to "this generation" (Mt 24:34). It signifies the elect's calling into Christ by means of the trumpeting in of the archetypical Great Jubilee (cf. 2Th 1:11; 2:14). Here it functions the same way. With the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Christians will henceforth be "gathered together" in a separate and distinct "assembly" (episunagoge ; the church is called a sunagoge in Jas 2:2). After the temple's destruction God will no longer tolerate going up to the temple to worship (it will be impossible!), as Christians frequently do prior to AD 70.

Verses 3–7. Paul informs them that "that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition" (2Th 2:3). The word "falling away" is apostasia, which occurs in the New Testament only here and in Acts 21:21.

Historically, the word can apply to a revolt: either political or religious. But to which does it refer here? I believe that it speaks of the Jewish apostasy/rebellion against Rome. Josephus certainly calls the Jewish War against Rome an apostasia (Josephus, Life 4, 9, 10; J.W. 2:2:7; 2:16:4; 7:4:2; 7:6:1). Probably Paul merges the religious and political concepts here, though emphasizing the outbreak of the Jewish War, which results from their apostasy against God (Mt 22:1–7; Lk 19:41–44; 1Th 2:14–16). The emphasis must be on the revolt against Rome because it is future and datable, whereas the revolt against God is ongoing and cumulative. Such would be necessary to dispel the deception on which Paul is focusing. In conjunction with this final apostasy and Jerusalem's consequent destruction, Christianity and Judaism are forever separated and both are exposed to Rome's wrath.

The man of lawlessness is Nero Caesar. Paul clearly implies that something is presently (ca. AD 52) "restraining" (present participle) the man of sin "that he may be revealed in his own time" (2Th 2:6). The man of lawlessness is alive and waiting to be "revealed." This implies that for the time being, Christians could expect at least some protection from the Roman government: the Roman laws regarding religio licita are currently in Christianity's favor, while it remains a sect of Judaism. This begins to end after the malevolent Nero ascends the throne, for he begins persecuting Christianity in AD 64. Paul certainly enjoys the protection of Roman law (Ac 18:12ff) and makes important use of it in AD 59 (Ac 25:11–12; 28:19), when he seeks protection from the malignancy of the Jews. He expresses no ill-feelings against Rome when writing Romans 13 in AD 57–59, during the early reign of Nero.

When Paul writes 2 Thess. 2, he is under the reign of Claudius Caesar. He seems to employ a word play on Claudius' name. The Latin word for "restraint" is claudere, which is similar to "Claudius." While Claudius lives, Nero, the man of lawlessness, is powerless to commit political lawlessness. Christianity is free from the imperial sword until the Neronic persecution begins.

The evil "mystery of lawlessness" is "already working," though restrained in Claudius' day (2Th 2:7). This perhaps refers to the evil conniving and plotting of Nero's mother, Agrippina, who poisons Claudius so that Nero can ascend to the purple (Tacitus, Annals 12:62ff; Suetonius, Claudius 44).
The Roman emperor, according to Paul, "exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped" (2Th 2:4a). The phrase "so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" is interesting. When an infinitive (kathisai, "to sit") follows hoste ("so that"), it indicates a purpose intended, not necessarily a purpose accomplished. Nero intends or desires to present himself as God. We see the evil potential of emperor worship just a few years before, when the emperor Caligula (a.k.a. Gaius) attempts to put his image in the temple in Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18:8:2–3; Philo, Embassy to Gaius).

Not only so but in Nero the imperial line eventually openly "opposed" (2Th 2:4) Christ by persecuting his followers. Nero even begins persecuting Christians, when he presents himself in a chariot as the sun god Apollo, while burning Christians in order to illuminate his self-glorifying party.

Verses 8–9. Verses 8 and 9 read: "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders." The lawless one is eventually openly revealed. The mystery form of his character gives way to a revelation of his lawlessness in Nero's wicked acts. This occurs after the restrainer [Claudius] is "taken out of the way," allowing Nero the public stage upon which he can act out his horrendous lawlessness.

In Christ's judgment-coming against Jerusalem, we also discover judgment for the man of lawlessness, Nero. Thus, Christians may take comfort in the promised relief from both Jewish and Neronic opposition (2Th 2:15–17). Not only does Titus destroy Jerusalem within twenty years, but Nero himself dies a violent death in the midst of the Jewish War (June 9, AD 68). His death, then, will occur in the Day of the Lord in conjunction with Christ's judgment-coming against Israel. Christ destroys Nero with "the breath of his mouth," much like Assyria is destroyed with the coming and breath of the Lord in the Old Testament (Isa 30:27–31) and like Israel is crushed by Babylon (Mic 1:3–5).

Thus, 2 Thess. 2 provides no assistance to the dispensational view of Antichrist. For more information, see fuller exposition of this text in my He Shall Have Dominion, published by NiceneCouncil.com's susidiary, ApologeticsGroup Media.

The Problem of the Antichrist

2009-08-11T09:05:00.008-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

The Dispensational Tendency

Perhaps more than any other evil figure in Scripture, Christians most fear the Antichrist. After all, "in premillennial eschatology the final world ruler who opposes God and his Christ (particularly in relation to his deity), oppresses God’s elect (especially the Jewish people), and seeks to usurp the place of divine worship through desecration of the holy (especially Jerusalem and its temple) is known as the Antichrist" (Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, 43)

Many dispensationalists believe he is alive today — in fact, this seems to be an important proof that one is truly a dispensationalist. This is largely due to dispensationalists being strongly committed to the imminency of Christ’s Return, which precedes the rise of Antichrist by only a few minutes — perhaps as few as three-and-one-half minutes. (Woody Allen believes that there is a race of men on another planet that are advanced over our civilization by fifteen minutes. This gives them an advantage in that they are never late for meetings. I would point out that they also would be less likely to have to endure stale doughnuts.) They believe his Return has been imminent for 2000 years now.

In an interview in Eternity magazine in 1977 Hal Lindsey responded to a question regarding the Antichrist: "In my personal opinion, he’s alive somewhere now" (Lindsey, "The Great Cosmic Countdown," 80.) Tertullian fumbled on this matter also, when he wrote 1700 years ago that Antichrist "is now close at hand" (Tertullian, De Fuga, 12). Perhaps Antichrist is an extremely old fellow (he may have even starred in the Indiana Jones movie, The Last Crusade). Lindsey was so convinced of his view that Mr. Antichrist roamed the planet, that he wrote 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon.

As a 1990s best-selling author striving to stay atop the best-seller lists, Dave Hunt wrote that there "is strong evidence indeed that the Antichrist could appear very soon — which means that the rapture may be imminent" (Hunt, Peace Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust, 256). (Of course, his dispensationalism says that the rapture has been imminent for 2000 years, so technically Hunt cannot be proven wrong until the sun explodes into a red giant after consuming all of its hydrogen in about five billion years.) He is convinced that "somewhere, at this very moment, on planet Earth, the Antichrist is almost certainly alive" (Hunt, Global Peace, 5). The title of Mark Hitchcock’s 2003 book asks: Is the Antichrist Alive Today? He titles chapter 8: "Antichrist is Alive and Well."

The dispensationalist Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy even includes a heading: "Is the Antichrist Alive Today?" In so doing it struggles to correct fellow dispensationalists who "tragically" are "guessing dates and selecting possibilities for the Antichrist" (PEBP, 26). Of course, this sort of belief has for generations been the tendency among dispensationalists, who constantly point out numerous possible Antichrist candidates.

The Dispensational Problem

Ironically, the least helpful verses for developing the dispensational view of the Antichrist are the only ones that expressly mention him. "Antichrist" appears only four times in all of Scripture: in 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; and 2 John 7. (Strangely, Walvoord in his comprehensive Prophecy Knowledge Handbook does not even mention these verses in his treatment of "Prophecy in 1, 2, and 3 Jn and the Epistle of Jude" — or anywhere else in his 800-page work.)

Most dispensationalists apply the name of "Antichrist" to other evil figures in prophecy: under "Titles of the Antichrist," the Popular Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy lists "the beast," "the man of lawlessness, and Daniel’s "little horn" (p. 24). But these associations are surely mistaken. Not only do none of the contexts of these titles mention the word "Antichrist," but they actually contradict the explicit references to Antichrist. This is all the more remarkable in that the word "Antichrist" does not even appear in the context of the beast of Revelation, despite the fact that Revelation’s author, John, is the only New Testament writer who does employ the word "Antichrist" elsewhere.

It seems that many Christians in the first century thought of the Antichrist as a particular individual. John mentions this widespread belief: "You have heard that the Antichrist is coming" (1Jn 2:18b). John’s point in mentioning him, however, is to rebut the false views that are confusing his audience. Early Christians were picking up many false eschatological concepts. John even corrects a false notion regarding his own living until Christ’s Second Advent (Jn 21:22–23). Elsewhere, Paul uses a false teaching regarding baptism for the dead to drive a point home regarding the resurrection (1Co 15:29). Paul often urges his followers to hear him and preserve those things he teaches (Php 4:9; 1Th 2:13; 2Ti 1:13; 2:2).

We should expect this sort of confusion, for the Lord himself taught his disciples that within his own generation (Mt 24:34) "many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many" (Mt 24:5); "many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many" (Mt 24:11); and "false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect" (Mt 24:24).

The dispensational view of the Antichrist is destroyed by three observations from Scripture itself.

Antichrist’s Time

John’s readers are hearing that though Antichrist is not yet on the scene, he nevertheless "is coming." but John informs them that this "antichrist" "is now already in the world" (1Jn 4:3). John writes: "this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world" (1Jn 4:3b). John clearly warns them that that which they "heard was coming" is "now already in the world." In addition, he remarks: "As you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come" (1Jn 2:18). The "even now" emphasizes the presence of that which they fear ("as you heard").

Antichrist’s Impersonality

In redirecting his readers’ focus from the Antichrist’s future to his contemporary existence, John also explains that the Antichrist is a movement, rather than an individual. In dealing with the idea of "the Antichrist," he writes: "even

now many antichrists have come" (1Jn 2:18). In fact, Antichrist is a "spirit" (1Jn 4:3) that pervades these many "antichrists" (1Jn 2:18), which involve "many deceivers" (2 Jn 7).

Antichrist’s Tendency

Antichrist really is not a multitude of people, but rather the "spirit" (1Jn 4:3) among them — a spirit that promotes deception (2 Jn 7) regarding Christ. "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son" (1Jn 2:22). John clearly applies the conception of the one Antichrist (ho antichristos) to the generic tendency to promote lies about the identity of Christ. He repeats this point in his second letter: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and the antichrist [ho antichristos]" (2Jn 1:7). Thus, the first century Antichrist movement was a doctrinal heresy, rather than a political danger.

On the basis of these four references we learn that Antichrist is not an individual, malevolent ruler looming in our future. Rather, he was a contemporary heretical tendency regarding the person of Christ, which is current among many in John’s day.

The Bad News Bearers

2009-08-04T11:33:00.013-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

An oddity of dispensationalism’s premillennialism is that it spends more time discussing the terrifying seven year Great Tribulation than it does the glorious Thousand Year reign of Christ. By doing this it dwells on a brief aside in history (the seven year Tribulation) rather than history’s (as it is supposed) long-term goal (the Millennium). It lingers longer over the time of the Antichrist than the time of Christ. It dwells on the dispensationally unclassifiable era of the Tribulation, which occurs after the Dispensation of Grace (the Church Age) and before the Dispensation of the Kingdom (the Millennial Age).

This focus on the negative is largely due to the intensely exciting nature of the judgments in the Tribulation period. Bad news sells. And it sells well. Read the newspapers. You will find more stories on criminals purse-snatching from little old ladies than on Boy Scouts helping them across the street (the little old ladies, not the criminals). Woody Allen once commented that he saw three men beating up an old lady. He mused to himself that it was not that long ago when that job would have taken only one thug. But I digress.

In dispensationalism the good news takes a back seat to the bad news; the Tribulation trumps the Millennium in the minds and hearts of dispensationalists (and the pocketbooks of their leaders). When was the last time a dispensationalist wrote a series on the millennium, such as Called Ahead? Or a paperback titled The Future Great Planet Church? In fact, Dispensationalism’s brand of premillennialism even emphasizes the Tribulation in its distinctive theological self-classification: it holds to pre-tribulational premillennialism. Ryrie even notes that premillennialism is not a sine qua non of dispensationalism (Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody, 1995], 38).

Consider Hal Lindsey’s literary output by way of example. He has written several best-selling works with such titles as:

Satan is Alive and Well On Planet Earth (he has not written: Satan Will Be Bound 1000 Years)
The Late Great Planet Earth (he has not written: The Future Great Planet Church)
The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon (he has not written: 1987: The Beginning of the Millennium). (I will confess that he may have been wise in avoiding this title; perhaps he learned his lesson from calling for the Great Tribulation in the 1980s. No wait, I take it back. In the 1990s he wrote Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive? See below.)
The Final Battle (he has not written: The Beginning of Peace)
The Terminal Generation (he has not written: The Glory Generation)
Planet Earth: The Final Chapter (he has not written: Planet Earth: The Glory Chapter)
Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive? (He has not written: Planet Earth 2007: The Millennium and Mankind’s Survival)
Apocalypse Code (he has not written: Millennium Code)
Blood Moon (he has not written: There Will Be No Need of the Sun)

Besides their incredible marketing strategy (bad news sells — it does not matter how many times you miss calls for the Rapture), dispensationalism has an inherent theological principle that moves them to produce such works. That theological principle is: Satan wins in history before Christ comes to settle the score. Their theology holds that the fall of Adam is more powerful than the resurrection of Christ for altering history. Only the Return of Christ — not his resurrection — holds out hope for a future, discontinuous history.

Marketing Dispensationalism

2009-07-28T15:34:00.014-04:00

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

In this blog I will review Mark Hitchcock’s What Jesus Says About Earth’s Final Days (2003). I do this in order to illustrate the confusion that reigns in dispensationalism, a confusion that appears simultaneously with their enormous sales among their disoriented adherents. That such a system could control the evangelical market never ceases to amaze me.

The Marketing Juggernaut

Dispensationalism is not only an eschatological orientation (pre-tribulational premillennialism), it is a whole theological system complete with its own redemptive-historical structure (the seven, discrete dispensations). Not only so, but despite its enormous complexity (with multiple programs, peoples of God, several comings of Christ, various resurrection programs [though lacking one for those unresurrected saints in the millennium who die], back-and-forth movements in and out of heaven, manifold program judgments, unexpected chronological gaps [necessary for making the system work], and so forth), dispensationalism is also a commercial product capable of creating a marketing juggernaut in a single bound (paperback bound, might I add). And surprisingly, it creates enormous sales of its products despite the confusing and contradictory nature of the system which is simply glossed over in its popular writings.

More than any other eschatological system, dispensationalism is run by a well-oiled, heavy duty commercial behemoth that is controlled by its enormously successful marketing plan. Dispensationalism is offered up for sale in the evangelical world, and its enormous audience gladly digs deeply into their pockets to buy its many soon-to-be-outdated products (such as, Lindsey's 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon and Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive?). In this regard, it differs remarkably from non-dispensational eschatological systems. Let us see how this is so.

For instance, in postmillennial circles you simply do not see 4 foot by 12 foot full color, water-resistant, wrinkle-free, non-fade, hemmed-edge, reinforced grommet, braid-on-braid nylon rope-hung canvas wall charts. Nor do we publish entire books containing collections of ornate graphs, pie charts, line charts, bar charts, flow charts, cartograms, scatterplots, diagrams, outlines, timelines, road maps, blueprints, tables, box plots, nomograms, and histograms. (Edward Rolf Tufte becomes green with envy when he picks up the latest dispensational book.)

Nor do postmillennialists and amillennialists market “study” Bibles bulging with full-color illustrations that rival anything the Jehovah’s Witnesses have ever produced (see: LaHaye, Prophecy Study Bible). Nor among amillennialists do you have televangelists dominating the airwaves and declaring themselves “prophecy experts.” (One such amillennialist who did try to mimic dispensationalism’s sensationalistic marketing plan failed miserably — just as dispensationalists themselves always do: Harold Camping, author of the doomed book, 1994?)

Nor do non-dispensational systems manufacture and distribute genuine imitation gold, Made in China, lapel pins with the American flag crossed with the Israeli flag. Nor do they offer “America and Israel Together Forever” low-profile, durable, washed-twill, matching-visor, adjustable ball caps that fit any sized head. (The only ideal fashion-wear accessory for the postmillennialist or amillennialist is a leather Bible. Though sometimes their Bibles may contain multi-ribbon place markers, but these are usually only in several basic colors with no imprinted cliches on the ribbons. On one occasion I must confess, however, to sporting a multi-ribbon Bible marker that did display the statement: "Genuine Nylon.")

Nor do non-dispensational adherents send money to support non-Christian religions in building a place of worship, as many dispensationalists do with the proposed rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. Hitchcock himself is delighted that “there are some amazing preparations going on in Jerusalem today for the rebuilding of the third Jewish temple” (p. 71).

Nor can you pick out a postmillennialist from a crowd while blindfolded simply by listening for code words that are culled from prophetic novels. For instance, Hitchcock speaks fluent Dispensationalese. He uses numerous dispensational cliches, code words, and trivializations, such as “snatched” (the Rapture), “maranatha” (p. 12), “prophetic clock," and prophetic “blueprint” (ch. 2). To distance himself from standard, serious prophetic studies he refers to events that “burst on the scene” (p. 47), the false prophet as the Antichrist’s “right-hand man” (p. 68), the Antichrist being “hot on their heels” (p. 70), and so forth, and so on, ad infinitum.

Dispensationalists can often be heard calling each other the “foremost evangelical authority” on this or that topic, such as does Hitchcock regarding Randy Price (p. 71). Such back-patting is socially acceptable behavior in their circles (removing fleas is not). Nor do postmills or amills have action figures in the expansive toy section of Christian bookstores (who would buy a twelve inch tall plastic Charles Hodge doll with an 1860 Henry Lever Action Repeating Rifle and coon skin cap? Unless they were on sale, of course.) And where are the amillennial bumper stickers (when have you ever seen a bumper sticker urging: “In case of Bible study, pull out Berkhof”)?

The vast majority of dispensational books are marketing tools for promoting the movement’s enormous, growing product line among its large installed base. In this regard, let’s consider a sample of their promotional literature by dipping into Hitchcock’s What Jesus Says About Earth’s Final Days. In this book we see a continual sales pitch for the system, even while providing naive, trite, and confusing information. Let’s get started. He expects the Rapture soon, and I would not want to miss the opportunity to post this blog.

A Sample Sales Pitch

You know you have bought dispensational sales literature when you open a book and in the first couple of paragraphs you already begin hearing the phrase “planet earth.” Dispensationalists seldom mention simply “the world” or “the earth.” They generally remind their readership that this is a planet --- a planet that has a particular name: “planet earth.” (Keep in mind: they did this long before Pluto was kicked out of the “planet” category. They are not simply holding a grudge because they are miffed at the International Astronomical Union’s deposing Pluto from planet status to a mere Trans-Neptunian Object, one of a host of debris orbiting in the Kuiper Belt. But if Pluto is ever declared an object from the Oort Cloud, they will raise a ruckus.) Hitchcock does not disappoint. Paragraph two in his book closes with this very phrase —and it is sprinkled liberally throughout the book, providing a welcoming, homey feel to any dispensationalist reader — even though they have read hundreds of books just like this one before.

If you are going to sell anything in the dispensational market, you must learn to speak the language. Hitchcock is articulate in the native tongue, Dispensationalese (a non-standard dialect spoken only by a few hundred million dispensationalists at Rapture Parties). But he is also innovative: he creates new terms for their lexicon (that will surely be picked up on by erstwhile dispensationalists clamoring to prove themselves articulate). For instance, Hitchcock writes: “as the end of the age draws near, creation will begin to groan and clear its throat in anticipation of the King’s coming.” The earth will “clear its throat”? This has got to stop before someone speaks of the earth’s burping as a sign of the end. (Uh oh! I am afraid I just suggested a new prophetic term. Drat!)

As is typical of slick sales literature, this book presents the dispensational system without any realization at all of its mind-boggling complexity and head-spinning contradictions. Consider a few examples of this unconcern for coherence.

On p. 10 Hitchcock writes that Christians “will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and will go with Him back up to heaven. Then they will return again with Him, back to earth, at least seven years later at His second coming.” We will be in and out of this world as programs change and people groups are shifted here and there. It is all so dizzying. I fear we may all get decompression sickness through all of this up-and-down activity. Nitrogen is already building up in my bloodstream as I think about it!

Hitchcock illustrates the internal confusion in the system, when he states that “the Tribulation is the final seven years of this age” (p. 10). How can the Tribulation be the final years of “this age” if the Church has been raptured and this age is called the Church Age? Actually, in his system the Rapture ends “this age,” the Church Age.

He also believes in a literal, earthly, Jewish millennial kingdom (pp. 93, 98, 99). Yet in one of his many tables he lists Matt. 8:11–12 as a verse mentioning “Christ’s kingdom.” Yet when we look at that verse we see Gentiles coming into his kingdom “from east and west” (i.e., from outside of Israel) while “the sons of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out.” Hitchcock's system states that "at the end of the Tribulation, Jesus will gather them [the Jews] to enter into the Messianic kingdom" (p. 99). Who do we believe: Jesus or Hitchcock? And why did not Hitchcock know these verses state the opposite of what he claims?

Despite Jesus teaching that he himself did not know when he would return, Hitchcock speaks of “Signs of His Coming” (p. 15), a favorite marketing phrase in Dispensationalese. What is more, consider the following conundrum this creates in the dispensational system — even in his own book: (1) Dispensationalists believe that the Rapture is the next event on the prophetic “calendar.” No other prophetic event is to occur until the “prophetic clock” begins ticking (p. 47). (2) The Rapture is absolutely “signless” (pp. 9, 105, 107), thus no one will expect it when it occurs. Hitchcock explains Jesus’ analogy of the coming “birth pangs” that start the events immediately upon the Rapture: “They come without any warning. All of a sudden, out of nowhere they begin” (p. 45; cp. 46). (3) Jesus informs us that even he did not know when he would return (Matt 24:36).

Nevertheless, (4) according to Hitchcock (and every best-selling dispensationalist) “many today are oblivious of the signs of His second coming”! Well, no wonder they are “oblivious,” Jesus said they would be! And the next event is the signless Rapture which comes “without any warning,” “all of the sudden, out of nowhere.” How could there be signs of the Second Advent, when another prophetic event must precede it and no prophetic signs can occur until that previous event happens, so as to get the prophetic time-clock (I can’t believe I am using this language) ticking again?

In chapter 2 Hitchcock follows the typical populist-dispensationalist game plan: He has Jesus providing us with a “blueprint of the end” (p. 28). Yet apparently one of their famous gaps occurs in this blueprint. (Thank goodness actual architects do not allow gaps in their blueprints. Would you go up in the Empire State Building if an architect left off the four-inch concrete slab to support it? I rather doubt it.) Let’s note the gap in this “blueprint of the end.”

Hitchcock is dealing with the “end-time prophecy” in Matt. 24–25. He writes: “Jesus distilled the end times down to their most basic elements.” Yet you look in vain for the Rapture in Matthew 24–25. Remarkably, the Rapture is a suppressed premise among these “most basic elements.” It is all about the Great Tribulation which immediately follows the Rapture. Is not the Rapture the key that opens up the next prophetic stage of events? If this is a “blueprint of the end” and the Church is not present during the Great Tribulation, where does this blueprint passage mention the Church’s all-important exit strategy?

Furthermore, Hitchcock states of Matt. 24–25: “there is no place in the Bible that gives a clearer, more concise overview of what’s going to happen during earth’s final days” (pp. 28–29, cp. 41, 108, 121). He argues that “Jesus follows an orderly chronological sequence in unfolding the major events of earth’s final days” (p. 39). But Hitchcock’s view has Jesus overlooking the unique event that starts the prophetic time clock ticking so as to open up the Great Tribulation: the Rapture. That is a rather glaring omission for an "overview" and "chronology" of such events! That is like describing the Daytona 500 without mentioning it actually starting.

To make matters worse, Hitchcock also teaches that this prophecy speaks of “earth’s final days” (see also p. 39). (I commend him for avoiding the phrase “planet earth” at this juncture; temptation can be avoided.) But on his own system the earth continues for another 1000 years! Ten whole centuries! The Great Tribulation is hardly the earth’s “final days.”

Another contradiction in Hitchcock’s presentation is found on p. 31: He speaks of the preterist view of Matt. 24, then he claims that preterists “ignore the other parts of the question” where the disciples ask: “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (p. 31). This is remarkable for two reasons:

(1) Hitchcock has already noted on that very page that preterists “contend that all the events in Matthew 24:4–31 were fulfilled in A.D. 70” (p. 31). Thus, he is aware that we believe that the events after Matt. 24:31 begin speaking of the Second Advent (particularly Matt. 24:36ff). So then, we do see the end of the age occurring in the Olivet Discourse. He is not only confused about our view but about his own presentation which recognizes our view! (2) He then makes the absurd claim that Jesus himself ignores the disciples’ question: “So, Jesus basically ignores the first part of their question and tells them about the sign of His coming and the end of the age, knowing that that’s what they really wanted to know about” (p. 32). How can he complain that preterists “ignore the other parts of the question” when he claims Jesus himself “ignores” part of their question? This does not make sense as a complaint against preterism.

On p. 37 he proudly declares that “at the end of the future Tribulation, the Jewish people will repent and their Messiah will return to rescue them from Antichrist (Zechariah 12:10).” But tucked away much later in the book (p. 77) is the admission that Zech. 13:8 teaches “that as many as two-thirds of the world’s Jewish population will be slain during Antichrist’s reign.” The Jews are hardly rescued in this scenario — for two-thirds of them are horribly destroyed.

On p. 47 Hitchcock informs us that the Antichrist’s covenant of peace with Israel “is the very first birth pang.” But then just four pages later he writes: “the first birth pang is the rise of false Christs” (p. 51). Well, which is it? For a system boldly waving graphs, charts, diagrams, outlines, blueprints, timelines, road maps, and tables, this still remains too confusing.

Oddly enough, Hitchcock parrots the dispensationalist line that the Great Tribulation is “worse than any other time of trouble in world history” (Jesus' statement in Matt. 24:21 is a sample of common prophetic hyperbole). He even provides two arguments supporting this claim: “First, the terror and destruction of the Great Tribulation will not be limited to a few locations. The entire world will be engulfed. Second, most of the trouble in the world up to this point is the result of the wrath of man and the wrath of Satan. However, in the Great Tribulation, God Himself will be pouring out His unmitigated wrath on a sinful, rebellious world.” These two arguments do not prove his point. Note the following:

Dispensationalists somehow overlook Noah’s Flood which was absolutely worldwide (only one family lived through it) and it was directly from God. Peter even emphasizes the enormity of the catastrophe: “in which a few, that is, eight person’s, were brought safely through the water” (1 Pet. 3:20; cp. 2 Pet. 2:5). And they overlook this in their arguments despite two facts: (1) Jesus himself mentions Noah’s Flood (Matt. 24:37–38) while talking about the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21). (2) Hitchcock even mentions Noah’s Flood elsewhere in his book (pp. 102–03). To make matters worse, Jesus’ own teaching only urges men to flee from Judea (Matt. 24:16). This is not a worldwide event.

What is really odd is that Hitchcock boldly presents a statement from the Dallas Morning News: “Twenty percent of Americans said they believe the Second Coming will occur sometimes around the year 2000” (p. 79). Hitchcock’s book was written three years after 2000, and now it is nine years after. It won’t be long before it is 100 years after. They have no shame. They simply do not shy away from constantly being wrong about the date of the Second Coming.

Hitchcock apparently does not understand his own system (who could?). In dispensationalism the Second Coming of Christ is at the end of the Great Tribulation and results in the establishing of the Millennium (p. 93). Dispensationalism has long taught (as one of its many absurdities) that many people will move from the Great Tribulation era into the Millennium with unresurrected bodies. They will bear children, many of whom later will revolt against Christ at the end of the Millennium. But what does Hitchcock say about Christ’s Second Coming and its consequences?

Hitchcock cites Rev. 19:19–21 as one of the texts showing that “Jesus will return as King of kings and Lord of lords. He is coming back to take over!” (p. 88). By this (rather trite) representation he is speaking of Christ coming to establish the Millennium after the Tribulation (pp. 92–93; and see chart on p. 98). But two pages later (and under the very next heading) he states: “When Christ returns there will be an immediate, eternal separation and division of the redeemed from the lost. . . . The fate of all men on earth at that time will be sealed at that moment” (p. 90). But every dispensationalist theologian states that those who survive Armageddon will enter the Millennium in unresurrected bodies — and many of these will later be converted. It would be strikingly odd if many Gentiles would be saved during the Great Tribulation (p. 100), but those who were not saved in those horrible days could not be saved after they enter the glorious Millennium. The system is so complicated that one of its leading (populist) lights cannot get it straight.

What is worse: They effectively write off all evangelicals who do not hold to one of their several Rapture theories: “All people who believe the Bible believe in a Rapture” (p. 96). Then he gives a “chart and timeline [that] should help in giving a broad overview of where people are on this issue” (p. 96). The chart on page 97 lists only dispensational options. Dispensationalists live in a world to themselves.

After speaking of the "imminence" of Christ’s coming as found in the dispensational view of the New Testament (p. 103), Hitchcock notes that the Parable of the Ten Virgins teaches that Christ “may delay His coming longer than we think” (p. 114). He even comments that “the long period of time He is gone away pictures the interadvent age, or the time between Christ’s ascension to heaven and His return” (p. 117). Then: “Christ predicted He would be gone for a ‘long time’ (v. 19). It’s now been almost two thousand years” (p. 118). Which is it: Did Christ teach he could return at “any moment”? Or did he teach that “He would be gone for a ‘long time’”?

Well there you go. Dispensationalism is as complicated and contradictory as it is popular. The dispensationalist marketing plan could sell bikinis to Eskimos. In fact, I would not be surprised if they do have a bikini store in Fairbanks, Alaska. After all, a bikini has just enough room to display a lapel pin sporting an Israeli flag over against the American flag.

Identifying Dispensationalists

2009-07-14T09:48:00.027-04:00

by Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

In that my post on "Witnessing to Dispensationalists" was so popular, I thought we might re-visit the humor department. Not that dispensationalism is laughable -- it actually causes me to cry a lot. Normally, my crying doesn't occur until I look at the New York Times best-seller list and see it crowded with dispensational fiction books. Indeed, that is why I stopped subscribing to the NY Times -- in addition to the fact that I live 800 miles away from New York (the "movie showings" section was not helpful to me at all).

Several blog readers sent me emails suggesting that I give some insights into how to recognize a dispensationalist. This, they thought, might help them in their quest to seek them out for an "intellectual" (I use the term loosely) encounter. Attempting an intellectual discussion with a dispensationalist is a lot like saddling a giraffe: It is a whole lot of trouble and there's not much point in it. (This is why you never see me riding a giraffe through the neighborhood.)

So then how can you recognize a dispensationalist? Jeff Foxworthy has developed one of the most useful psychological profiling systems for determining a person's identity. So I will follow his well-argued principles and apply them to the task at hand. I will even apply them personally to you, my reader, just in case you fear you may be succumbing yourself (out of saddness that you are never invited to Rapture parties).

You Might Be a Dispensationalist IF:

If you like to chew gum constantly so that your ears won’t pop in case of the Rapture.

If you subscribe to the newspaper simply to keep up with biblical prophecy.

If you always leave the top down on your convertible — just in case.

If bar code scanners make you nervous.

If you have been a Christian for less than one year and you have already studied through the Book of Revelation twelve times.

If you attend a church that sings as a Christian hymn the 1960s pop song "Up, Up and Away."

If you think general revelation is the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of Armageddon.

If you can name more dispensations than commandments.

If you forget your wife’s birthday, but you know the latest predicted date for the Rapture.

If you have already forgotten the last date predicted for the Rapture but you are excited about the most recent prediction, confident that "this is it!"

If you are a book collector and you long to locate a copy of The Late Great Planet Earth in the original Greek.

If you believe that the term "Early Church Fathers" refers to J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer.

If you would like a copy of Hal Lindsey's personal study Bible with penciled in corrections.

If you have on your den wall a framed, aerial photograph of Jerry Falwell.

If in casual conversation with friends and fellow employees at work you begin every sentence with: "According to biblical prophecy...."

If more than one of your children is named Ryrie, Chafer or Darby. (However, you may deduct this from your overall score if you have a child name Calvin.)

If you get excited when you see a sentence with a parenthesis.

If your license plate reads: "IM PR TRB." (You get extra credit if you have a friend who actually knows what it means -- and wishes he had one.)

If you believe the musical "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" contains an apocalyptic message. (You get extra credit if on the basis of the coded message you have sold your house and cashed out your retirement investments and moved to the top of some mountain -- on the side facing towards Jerusalem.)

If you ever thought you sealed a victory in a theological argument by introducing your rebutal by stating: "Nevertheless, as Tim LaHaye has saliently argued...."

If there are more underlined sentences in your copy of Late Great Planet Earth than in your Bible. (You get extra credit if you have a thumb-indexed edition of Late Great Planet Earth.)

If your Pastor gives a sermon exclusively from the Scofield Reference Bible study notes. (You get extra credit if he doesn't realize he has done so.)

If you own a leather-bound, red-letter edition of the Left Behind series.

If you have to have a full-color foldout chart before you can understand salvation by grace through faith.

If you’ve ever had more than three candidates for the AntiChrist at one time. (You get extra credit if you justified it by arguing from the doctrine of the Trinity.)

If you can read Stephen King novels and chuckle, but you see 666 on a cash register receipt and you run screaming out of the store, crying out: "I told you so!"

If you took Hal Lindsey’s advice forty years ago not to make any long term plans and are now broke, uneducated and in a dead-end job. (You get extra credit if your sanctification is such that you are not miffed at his raking in millions and investing them in long-term real estate ventures.)

If you always make sure there’s at least one non-Christian pilot on every flight you take. (You get extra credit if you discount the argument that: "If God had meant for us to fly he would have given us tickets." You must deduct points, however, if you are convinced Matt. 28:20 is a compelling argument against Christians' flying, because you understand that in this passage Jesus warns that: "Low, I am with you always.")

If you believe the concern about "population explosion" refers to Muslims blowing themselves up on a daily basis to make a salient theological point, and you are convinced there must be a verse in Revelation that mentions it (because explosions produce fire, fire occurs often in Revelation, and Revelation contains the letters "M," "U," "S," "L," "I," "M" scattered throughout the text).

If you still hold a lingering suspicion about Gorbachev’s birthmark on his forehead. (You get extra credit if you never confuse the shape of his birthmark with a map of Texas.)

If you believe that Grant Jeffrey, Dave Hunt, Hal Lindsey, or John Hagee is a theologian.

If you know the location of the European Central Bank because you believe you have properly exegeted Revelation 13:17 from the original Belgium version.

If you count trampoline aerobics as "Rapture Practice" in your 4:00 am devotions each morning. (You get extra credit if you believe the neighbors who live in the apartment below you are non-Christians and are persecuting you because they complain.)

If you think Texe Marrs’ books belong in the "Reference Works" section of your local Christian bookstore. (You get extra credit if you think they belong in your Christian bookstore at all.)

If you look for Chick Tracts in the "Theology" section of your local Christian bookstore. (You get extra credit if you shop at a Christian bookstore that actually has a "Theology" section. Note: The WWJD supply section is not considered a "Theology" section.)

If you ever stand on your head out of the fear that the Rapture will occur when Jesus returns over China, because you are confident of your exegesis of Rev. 9:16 regarding the battle involving 250,000,000 million Chinese soldiers. (You get three extra points if you can name each one of the 250,000,000 million soldiers without making the sound of a spoon hitting the floor.)

If your baby’s stroller has a break-away sun bonnet. (You get extra credit if it also has a bumper sticker on it stating: "In case of Rapture this vehicle will be unbabied.")

If you have five children, but refuse to buy life insurance on yourself because "I won't be needing it."

If your personal hymn favorite is: "My hope is built on nothing less, than Scofield's notes and Moody Press."

If Clarence Larkin is your favorite artist and you scoff at Norman Rockwell's meager artistic attempts.

If you think there are only two millennial positions: Pre-Trib and Liberal.

If your favorite party game is "Pin the horns on the Beast."

If your favorite Christian TV game show is: "Name that Antichrist."

If after reading the Left Behind series you file formal legal papers leaving your body to science fiction. (You must deduct points, though, if you realize the error of reading too many dispensationalist books and you donate your eyes as an organ donor before you die.)

A final note on this profiling technique.

I believe that if you master this YMBI ("You might be, if") Analysis you will be able effectively to ward off early-onset dispensationalism (some medical researchers call it by its more technical designation, Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type [SDAT].) Be aware, that after thirty-two years of intensive research by scores of left-handed scientists working in tandem, it was proven that that there was once someone who had heard of Reformed theology, but who became a dispensationalist nonetheless. No one is safe as long as there are newspapers to exegete.

Furthermore, you will be better equipped to identify chart-carrying dispensationalists even when they accidentally leave their charts at home. Admittedly, this doesn't happen often, but it can happen and you must prepared.

I hope you will use this YMBI Analysis tool often. You don't want to fail in your Christian life because you failed to take into account the biblical warning that states: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

Once you are secure in your non-dispensationalism (having passed the YMBI Analysis), you may enjoy playing the game of Spin-the-Dispensationalist. To play the game, simply ask a dispensationalist the question: "Why do your Rapture predictions always fail, but you continue to adopt new ones with even greater enthusiasm?" Then step back and watch him spin the facts to account for his gullability. (Be careful though: Stand back when playing the game, because if he spins too quickly, inertial forces may cause his WWJD necklace to slap you in the face thereby causing a bruise that looks like "666.")

This game is more fun than watching Aardvarks fight. Or at least, that's what an ant friend of mine has told me. (Although I am not sure I should trust this ant. This ant and some of his friends were recently accused of dressing up as rice and robbing a Chinese restaurant. His character is now under suspicion. But I did appreciate his giving me a free Chinese Fortune Cookie.)